This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
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 184.108.40.206 (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)
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 220.127.116.11 (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. 18.104.22.168 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
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.
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.
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)