Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)

Archive

As this page seemed too long (I have had real problems editing it), and there was a lull in the discussions before the Christmas special, I've created an archive for the old discussions. Edgepedia (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Eighth Doctor

What about the Chinese dude? 75.165.106.238 (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Astrid in Companion Deaths?

I know Astrid's position as a Companion is disputed, but should she be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.157.117 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The BBC have called her a companion, and she's listed as such on the Doctor Who website. Edgepedia (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The BBC loosely uses "companion" because it's an identifiable term with the show. As a marketing gimmick, it's understandable. However, it's not correct. This is even acknowledged in the episode count for Donna Noble, which notes fifteen appearances but only fourteen as companion. Her guest turn on "The Runaway Bride" does not count. In that episode, she was just a guest character. The same goes for Astrid Peth, Jackson Lake, Rosita, and Lady DeSouza. They were no more companions than the Castellan who helped Tom Baker in "The Deadly Assassin" or Lynda with a "y" a companion to Christopher Eccleston in "The Parting of the Ways." They were guest characters who provided a similar function, but were not actually companions in the long-standing tradition of the show.

My understanding of a companion is someone who is ends up traveling with the Doctor on the Tardis for some amount of time, usually because they were asked. In that regard, the Tenth Doctor's companions would be Rose Tyler, Mickey Smith, Martha Jones, Captain Jack Harkness, and Donna Noble.

Astrid Peth, Jackson Lake, Rosita, and Christina deSouza should all be delisted as companions of the Tenth. They were guest stars, and the term "companion" was applied in loose fashion. They were guest stars only, no more, no less.

Number of Stories as a Companion (Table)

The column for number of stories or episodes as a companion seems a little hard to follow. Polly, for example, is cited as appearing in 9 stories total, but then it's clarified that she appeared in 3 with one doctor and 7 with the other. I can gather that this is due to the character being present for a regeneration scene from one Doctor to another, but is it really necessary to count such stories twice when the new Doctor does not even have significant screen time (and really, does nothing in the story except lie there) in the story? So does The Tenth Planet really count as a serial for the Second Doctor? It doesn't appear to over at List_of_Doctor_Who_serials, and based on this it seems reasonable to argue that Polly should only be counted as appearing in 6 stories with him. In any event we should probably make the designation of stories to Doctor incarnations more consistent across pages. But in which direction? Ansate (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there is absoultely no reason to list Polly as being a companion to the second doctor in "The Tenth Planet", or any other companion who is present at a regeneration. It is confusing, especially to the casual reader, and quite frankly nonsense. It is also confusing to list a companion's last story as the story in which the Doctor regenerates, such as listing Sarah Jane Smith's last story as "Planet of the Spiders", and then listing her first story in the next table as "Robot". Perhaps as this article is about the companions we can change the table to be in the order of companions rather than Doctor, with a column stating which Doctor the companion travelled with?? Paul75 (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This would be, I think, a preferable arrangement. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done a test in the sandbox - comments? Eleventh Doctor (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused, and maybe I'm just using the sandbox incorrectly but-- what was changed? Ansate (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's better, but the numbers are still a bit off - 19+ 1 = 19, 4+2=7 etc etc. It is this that is the most problematic I think. Paul75 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to make it less complicated, but replacing the things after the number of stories with notes at the bottom (Like "also appeared in...". I didn't change the numbering for that test, but you could just count the regeneration story as one (which it is). I do agree that it's a little silly to count it as two stories because it happens to be with different Doctors - as on most occasions the new or previous doctor is there for two seconds. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced Companions, Excluded Companions

I see no citations for the inclusion of Adam Mitchell and Jackson Lake as companions. I'm also skeptical of the inclusion of Rosita, who, although I see press sources for her, all of them are pre-transmission sources, which means they're publicity pieces that are not based on what happens in the episode. I don't think those are useful for establishing companion status - I'd like to see something post-transmission that refers to her as a companion.

Also, although the UNIT folks are "disputed" companions (A claim that is utterly unsourced), the BBC does list Benton, Yates, and the Brigadier as companions, and the John Nathan-Turner Companions book also lists the Brigadier. Excluding these from the table while maintaining far more dubious companions is ridiculous. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We had that discussion already, see Talk:The Next Doctor and Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Doctor Who (and the archives). I doubt we need to start that all again... SoWhy 21:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Phil Sandifer on this one. Pre-transmission sources should not be used at all, a good example is the pre-transmission publicity surrounding The Next Doctor which claimed David Morrissey was a future incarnation of the Doctor and virtutally had him as the 11th Doctor. Perhaps a table of "one off companions" is needed, especially for the new series??? But I agree this is a subject which will never be settled as it has far too many elements and strong arguments for both sides. Paul75 (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

On top of that, I see nothing resembling consensus for the "Rosita is a companion" viewpoint - I mostly see one editor shouting down others, using the pre-transmission sources as evidence, which, as I've pointed out, are kind of rubbish. And the WikiProject discussion mostly amounted to a general consensus that we shouldn't be using companions at all in the infoboxes, instead going with either credit order or recurring characters. So, you know, I'm really not seeing much for SoWhy's position here.

This also does nothing to explain why companions who have reliable sources noting they are companions are not on this list. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I admit that I conceded on Rosita because I didn't want to get involved in another debate about fan beliefs vs production details. But you have a point in that a more direct quote from Davies et al would be better than a pre-transmission source (even a published one at that). As for the other "companions" with "reliable sources" who aren't on the list, that requires a little critical thinking and academic discretion. A case in point, JNT's companions book lists the Brig but Barry Letts only mentions Liz, Jo and Sarah as companions in the various documentaries. Using a little critical thinking, Letts probably had more authority during his tenure than JNT who came later. Anyway, that's what peer review is for. DonQuixote (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's just open POV, though, to give Letts priority over JNT and the BBC now. Still best to put them on the list with footnotes than exclude them entirely. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not open POV in that Letts was in charge of production at the time, so he with the help of Terrance Dicks decided what was going on in the show. Anyway, I forgot about The Five Doctors which was JNT's production, where the Brig was clearly meant to be the 2nd Doctor's companion. So JNT held authority during that. The point is that we can't just add people to the list because we wish them to be companions (or exclude them), but rather we have to prove via reliable sources that the character was meant to fill the companion role by the production team. A case in point, we can quote Davies where he created the companion of Adam solely for the purpose of the Doctor kicking him out. Or another one is where Katarina wasn't working out as a companion so they killed her off and replaced her for one serial by Sara Kingdom...before killing her off. Etc. DonQuixote (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, my problem is that authorial intent is still a POV. If a reliable source labels the character as a companion, then companion they are. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate the key points, critical thinking and peer review. That's why I support moving away from "definition" (since it's prone to POV and OR) towards "history of the programme". Based on the latter, there's no "authorial intent" ambiguity since much of the production is well documented and have been well-researched by DWM et al. This article, as it is now, is about half-and-half. DonQuixote (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, but picking only "history of the programme" is still a POV over, for instance, fan perspectives. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Picking "official canon" over, for instance, fan fiction is POV too. DonQuixote (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Only if the fan fiction has somehow become a reliable source. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) Just like to point out that most fan perspectives are not reliable sources in the sense that we can't cite random fan A for article B. DonQuixote (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Pick one method of inclusion and stick with it. The BBC website has a list of companions for the classic series and for the new series (under "Companions"). If you you go with people's opinions it will never be resolved because people have different criterias for what makes a companion 129.215.149.99 (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head. If it's based on opinions, then it'll never be resolved. That's why I'm for moving the article towards "history of the programme". DonQuixote (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the BBC list of companions is a good base to use, although it is problematic in that it doesn't list Sara Kingdom, yet does list Astrid Peth. I'd be inclined to go the opposite way, and it is likely Peth has been added to the list purely because of the publicity the actress can give the show and the BBC website. It's such a difficult issue and I am struggling with coming up with a suitable answer. The only suggestion I have is having a list of companions, and then a list of either "Disputed companions", or "Other Companions" which could include the Brig etc, and another list of "One off companions" which could feature Astrid, Sara etc. Astrid Peth's Wikipedia entry describes her as a "one-off companion". Paul75 (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Or we could include both Kingdom and Perth. I mean, my feeling is this: when a post-transmission reliable source lists a character as a companion, we include them on the table. When a post-transmission reliable source offers what attempts to be a comprehensive list of companions (the JNT book, the BBC), and that source excludes a character, we footnote it with a mention of that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Calling Mickey Smith a companion is like referring to the Doctor's genitalia as a companion. You could take that to the bank.  :)Smokefree (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Rejigging

I have removed all companions who are cited as companions entirely based on pre-transmission sources. Simply put, these do not seem to me reliable sources for this, as discussed above - it is impossible to identify a character's role in a story that nobody has seen yet. Such sources seem to me to be engaged, at best, in a very sort of loose talk that does not make a distinction between "companion" and "second lead after the Doctor" in a story. Until either the episode has aired or a character is clearly announced as a regular who will be traveling with the Doctor, sources of this sort are not reliable. Note, for instance, that Rosita and Jack are still excluded on the BBC's companion list (while Astrid is included).

I have also added companions who appear in reliable sources. That includes the UNIT characters, who are clearly indicated as Companions on the BBC site. I have footnoted these characters noting that other sources that attempt to present comprehensive lists of companions exclude them.

Finally, I have changed the column headers to simple "first" and "last" appearances, so as to do away with the "appearance as a companion" debate. Since this is an immensely fungible concept, it is far easier to simply just go with the unequivocal claim. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've also stopped referencing Dimensions in Time, which if I recall is not canon. I do so because that prevents us from starting down a slippery slope that involves referencing audio adventures and novels and the like. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Got the UNIT characters added, and renumbered the list. I still need to go in and clean a few other things up, and check some sources on Nyssa (everything I can quickly find treats her as a companion in Traken) to see if she should be re-ordered. I am, however, exhausted, and going to do the rest of the work tomorrow. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Phil, I unequivocally applaud your sensible approach and think the edits you have made have been brilliant. Well done. I foresee a battle ahead however....unfortunately Paul75 (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

One little caveat with UNIT, from a production standpoint, is that with further research (such as interviews with Letts and Dicks) reveals that they're in the same class as Jackie Tyler. DonQuixote (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So we footnote the ambiguous status of them. But we can't just ignore the reliable sources that include them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We can't ignore the sources (particularly the primary sources) that don't include them either. In academia, the practice is to go with what the majority of the sources state whilst mentioning (in a footnote or a section of its own) what the minority of the sources state--particularly if we're going to include something interpretive with something that is factually well-documented. DonQuixote (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And for none of the four disputed companions do we ignore any sources. But for a table, which does not lend itself to subtle treatments of disputed companions, I think we're better served by having all the companions that are considered as such by major reliable sources, with footnotes explaining the odd inclusions. Simply put, I think the perspective that Benton, Yates, the Brigadier, and Kingdom are not companions is done less violence by their footnoted inclusion than the perspective that they are is done by their wholesale omission from the table (which in turn means that information like actor, number of episodes, and first and last appearance is excluded from the article). Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's bad practice to be completely inclusive (that is, listing everything from one source that's omitted from another source). Personally, I really don't care if the Brig et al are added, but I really care when they're added for the wrong reason. To repeate my mantra from Talk:Keeper of Traken, it's "multiple sources vs single source". DonQuixote (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Tables don't lend themselves to gray area decisions. It comes down to, for me, what is more useful for a reader. Clearly all four characters are deemed companions according to a reliable source. The question is, do we include useful information like their actors, stories they appeared in, etc, and also include a footnote that the issue is disputed. The problem with removing them is that it simply removes information that's useful to readers. Because some sources don't include it. And that doesn't wash. The claim is verifiable. It's cited to a reliable source. The best that can be said is "not every source includes this." It's not as though the JNT book goes out of its way to slag Benton and Yates It just doesn't mention them. The idea that omission is being used as a statement as definitive as inclusion is already problematic. And yet we appear to be strangely allergic to including relevant information, even with a footnote clarifying the situation.

That's what bothers me here - we seem to have a preference for the exclusion of useful information sourced to reliable sources over the inclusion of it. Saying nothing is viewed as preferable to thorough coverage of the issue. That's bewildering to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is just bullshit. Cherry-picking sources? I've footnoted the exclusion of Benton and Yates! I've acknowledged that it's a borderline case! What exactly do you want? What more sources are relevant here? I've checked, at this point, two comprehensive lists of companions. One includes the characters, one excludes two of them. Are there actually reliable sources that contradict the BBC website here? Or is it just other sources that leave them off the list without comment? That's the basis for removing information like the actor, a list of appearances, etc? That's preferable to including that information with an explanation of the liminal status of the companions? That's nuts! You're opting, actively, for being less helpful to readers! How is that useful? Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 Administrator note Remember that a given fact does not become more verifiable if more sources link to it. When weighting colliding sources, one must always be able to judge which sources are more reliable than others, based on the source's past reliability and connection to the subject. As for this issue, I am hereby warning you both, Phil Sandifer and DoQuixote, and everyone else who might get involved into this dispute, to not revert this article again until consensus can be reached. I suggest you invite WP:WHO members to discuss this issue. Any further revert before there is consensus will be treated as revert-warring and sanctioned. Regards SoWhy 21:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, removing verified information because "I just don't like that source very much" (which appears to be the extent of the objection) is treated as vandalism, not as edit warring. The treating of idiocy like "no, you're cherry picking sources, you should be using these sources I like that I'm not saying what are, and that you're already acknowledging" as on an equal footing to "here is a neutral presentation of facts cited to a variety of sources" is why our fiction articles are steaming piles of shit. I would hope that you would not sanction users for taking a hard line against such foolishness. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(Content-wise) I have to agree with Phil here; If two sources conflict is such a way that one companion simply isn't mentioned in one source, it is no ground to discard the other source. If both sources are reliable, we use them both; We do not get to favor (or discard) one over the other. — Edokter • Talk • 01:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That might be correct or not. But removal of content because of such disagreement is not vandalism but a content dispute and revert-warring because of it is subject to WP:EW and WP:3RR (see WP:VAN: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism"). Vandalism implies a bad-faithed attempt to disrupt Wikipedia, not a good-faith attempt to disagree with sources. DonQuixote's point of view might or might not be correct but there is no indication whatsoever that he is doing it (...) in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. So one thing is to be "right", the other is to edit-war about it. The latter should be avoided even if you are "right". Regards SoWhy 07:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A comment on the administrator's note: that's true! Just because multiple sources link to something doesn't make it verifiable. On the other hand, just because one source mentions something, that doesn't make it verifiable either. We have to consider all the sources, and particularly not just one at the expense of all the others.

And a comment to Phil, that's not my position at all. It's not that I like or dislike the source in question, it's the fact that you like the source in question and you're giving it preferential treatment over all the others without just cause. I'm saying that you shouldn't confine yourself to a single source.

As to when two sources conflict, yes we should mentione both. However when there are more than two sources with the majority saying one thing and a minority saying another, the practice has been to go with the majority whilst mentioning the minorty (which had already been done in the previous version of this article)--of course, keeping in mind that "going with the majority" does not mean "counting the number of sources". That is, we have to be a little critical when citing sources, not just in terms of reliability but also in terms of what is being said and how are they saying it. DonQuixote (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Just because multiple sources link to something doesn't make it verifiable." Please come back when you have a rudimentary understanding of policy kthxbye. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Er...yeah. Reading comprehension, lack of. Verifiability includes (which, BTW, does not mean "is composed exclusively of") checking multiple sources. DonQuixote (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Which has been done here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, and a majority of the sources don't consider them companions whilst only a minority do. DonQuixote (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the BBC make Doctor Who, they invented Doctor Who, they OWN Doctor Who. Whatever they say on their official website goes. Not the word of a producer who may only stick around for a few years and was responsible for maybe a handful of companions. And certainly not the word of The Sun, Radio Times or any other publication.Paul75 (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can prove that the person(s) responsible for the website had an official authoritative position, then you've made your case. Otherwise, you're just generalising from one website to the entire institution. DonQuixote (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just had a thought (yep, a little slow in that area sometimes), but what exactly does "The BBC" mean? Think about this, are we referring to the Official Classic Doctor Who Website?...or an official BBC production such as Thirty Years in the TARDIS?...or a documentary on an officially licensed DVD?...or an officially licensed book by a contemporary producer (JNT's book)?...or production documents?...etc. Anyway, food for thought. DonQuixote (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The BBC is the organisation that hires the people that make Doctor Who, and various other media relating to Dcotor Who. As such, they are quite authorotive as a source. As for what to include as our sources, that should be quite simple: We include all sources that state who is a companion. One source should be enough to include the companion, even if otherd seemingly contradicts it by not listing or including them. — Edokter • Talk • 16:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

But the point is that "the BBC" isn't really a source since they hire other people to compile and release these things for them. It's the various projects themselves that are the sources. So saying "the BBC" is rather ambiguous. As for including all sources, examine the article Joseph Merrick--especially how he's not referred to as "Joseph aka John" but rather just "Joseph" and the discrepancy in the sources is mentioned within the article. DonQuixote (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to prove who is responsible for the BBC Doctor Who website, that is a ridiculous statement. Whoever produces the website is doing so under authority from the BBC. Therefore, whatever is on the official BBC website is pretty much incontrovertible fact in the eyes of the BBC (who, as stated, own Doctor Who and are really the only ones who can make the rules) Paul75 (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You're giving all authority to a website which is just one of many officially produced projects, some of which contradict one another. The question is, can you prove that the website has more authority than, say an officially produced documentary? DonQuixote (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Pre-transmission sources

Please could someone direct me to the discussion regarding pre-transmission sources? I cannot see why those I cited, (BBC press releases, comments from Russell T Davies and/or the BBC's Radio Times), for forthcoming companions in the 2009 specials, Lady Christina de Souza (Michelle Ryan), Adelaide (Lindsay Duncan) and Wilfred Mott (Bernard Cribbins), are not considered valid? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

From comments above, I can see nothing supporting exclusion of official BBC sources. I admit earlier edits adding Rosita relied quite heavily on pre-transmission sources such as newspaper reports, which on reflection were questionable citations, but for those I mention above, the sources are reliable and so a blanket 'no pre-transmission sources' seems inappropriate. Sources should be judged on their individual strengths. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

One further point is there is set precedent for this on Wikipedia. Rose, Captain Jack, Donna and Martha were all confirmed as companions prior to transmission. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a trickier matter with one-off companions, I think, in part because it's basically new territory. I'm more OK with official BBC sources, because if I recall the BBC is legally prohibited from foilers. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Future Companions

I've created a "Future Companions" which I feel is the more appropriate way to present cast information on yet to be transmitted episodes. This is common practice with other long running series on Wikipedia such as EastEnders and The Bill. In all honesty, I think it is very dangerous to establish as fact something that has not even happened yet. No actor or character should be labelled as a companion until the episode airs. Partly because plot twists and pre-transmission publicity can distort what the BBC and the media report (David Morrissey is the 11th doctor), but mainly because we do not know what is going to happen between now and broadcast. Without meaning to sound callous, Bernard Cribbins, David Tennant or Lindsay Duncan could die, the BBC could be blown up, or someone could steal every second of footage ever filmed of Doctor Who and destroy it. Not likely, but you never know. That's why I prefer to make the distinction between "already happened" and "planned to happen". Okay, rant over, interested to hear your views. Paul75 (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed companions section

I am finding this section very troubling, as it contains practically no citations whatsoever. Additionally, it gives air to fan concerns, something which we as an encyclopedia should never do, unless we have citable information. I find the willingness to include uncited, speculative information very disturbing.

My initial problem is whether this is an actually a real aspect of the subject that is worthy of mention, or is instead largely the by-product of a bunch of Whovians burning the midnight oil at the fan-forums. Their concerns are do not fulfill our criteria for inclusion, and should be considered of absolutely no consequence here. Ask yourself if a regular reader would give a fig what qualifies as a Companion, or if there is a real, burning need to dispute who is a Companion or not. I am guessing the average reader doesn't really care. As for the Whovian fanboiz, they have their endless stream of fan forums. Fan wonk is worthless here.

As the BBC and various other citable sources that meet our criteria for inclusion are out there, I am thinking that this situation needs addressing post-haste, as this section (and article) have an impact on other Who-related articles. First of all, we need absolutely rock-solid sources on what does and does not constitute a Companion. It cannot be up to us to suss it out, as that requires us to make evaluative and interpretive decisions, and constitutes synthesis.

I'd like to get some feedback, but I am placing the section here for citation work. Please do not re-add it unless the material can also be added with citation that meets our criteria for inclusion. (removed material that has since been readded by another editor)- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of that information is cited as you can see... so removing that information is not uncontroversial; removing cited information is a no-no. You can also not work on the text here and then copy it back to the article; that constitutes a copy-paste move which breaks our GFDL licence. any editing must be done within the article. So I ask that you put the information back. — Edokter • Talk • 12:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that we should not give air to fan concerns. WP:NPOV, in fact, seems to me to demand that we give active air to fan concerns.

The larger problem is that there is inconsistent sourcing on companions - the UNIT companions and Sara Kingdom being two chief examples. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To Edokter: I didn't say that there weren't any citations. I said there weren't enough to act as mortar to the rest of the musing speculation that composes the section. Additionally, I am curious as to precisely which part of GDFL says we cannot remove sections to the article discussion for citation-work and copyediting. Please feel free to point it out, verbatim. That aside, the remaining concern is that there doesn't appear to be an actual concern over this debate, and that it exists largely within the fan community as the fuel for the fan forum flame fests.

To Phil: The problem with a that argument is that the need to give a neutral weighing of fan concerns does nto and cannot be allowed to override the encyclopedia's need to reliable sourcing and verifiability. As blogs, fan forums and fan-sites are largely disallowed, there is a limit in what can be written abut them. Unless a fan goes on a shooting spree over the precise shade of the Tardis' color, most reliable sourcing is going to bypass the feckless flailing of the fans,

And I agree completely that the inconsistent sourcing of companions is a problem; we need to identify (and support through reliable sourcing) that which makes a character a companion. Until we do that, a lot of the rest of this is cruft. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We cannot move sections or articles to be edited, and later move them back, as that will break the text's history. The exact part of the GFDL is GDFL article 4 section B. That is the reason we do not allow copy-paste moves. So any copyedit or modification must do done on the article. So I will restore the text, and we can work on it there. Removing the entire section was overkill, and as I said earlier, a no-no. There is no problem on removing uncited text, but it is expected of editors to apply their editorial skills to leave correct information intcat. — Edokter • Talk • 22:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am looking at the specific area you have identified:

"List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement."

I am not seeing the caveat about removing sections to article discussion to perform citation work.

That said, are you referring to possible breaks in citation caused by named citations (not sure if that is the name for a citation that is re-used within the same article)? I am not seeing such happening here, as the section is fairly self-contained, citation-wise. Until this is ironed out, let's leave things as they are for now, and not have yet another back and forth kerfuffle. I want to make sure I understand your theory and motivation against removal. I am not saying you are wrong; I am simply saying that I don't clearly see your argument against removal. Wile some citations are good, they in themselves aren't solid enough to bind the entire section together. If we find ourselves in agreement to re-add the section, it will be drastically modified to remove the uncited speculation and OR conclusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against removal per se. And I'm also not talking about the citations. The article (and all other) are required by the GFDL to be atrtributed to their authors (that is us). To do so, all edits must be recorded in the article's history. The only way ensure that, is to edit the article itself. Doing it here and then placing the text back is not GFDL complient and constitutes a 'copy-past move'. See also the preamble for Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. — Edokter • Talk • 22:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two things wrong here; 1) your proposed way of copyediting breakt the history, and I as an admin have to prevent that at all cost. Therefor I am restoring the information. 2) You are removing more information besides the contested information, and I also explained that is a no-no. So I will restore it again, so you can do it right this time, by removing only the uncited information. I will go through the content and make some edits that will show you how to deal with this situation. Realise this is not a content issue, but a GFDL complience issue. We cannot edit the article on the talk page. Can I have your word you will not remove cited information again? — Edokter • Talk • 23:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, per WP:BRD, it was not wise to remove the content again. This could have turned into a nasty edit-war again with a likelyhood of someone being blocked. So please try to assert some basics here: Bold, Revert, Discuss. And second, no removing of cited information. — Edokter • Talk • 23:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine, as you don't need yet another block (and I don't need the headache of reporting you yet again), we'll try it your way - I can see you're at your 2^nd revert already. The point of removal was to trim out the garbage and speculation while keeping the cited info. As the usertalk page also has a history, the removed info would show up in the history. Additionally, the removed information cannot really be supported on its own, but could be added in at a later date with citations.

After you have completed your 'in use', I'll look over it again, Understand that if it doesn't have a citation, it wont be able to remain. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) Understand that the changes must be explicitly recorded in the article's history, not the talk page history; editing the article here is out of the question and I would certainly not have been blocked over this, as GFDL complience is a given and is uphold above all else. To add, your removal of cited information is also definite ground for blocking, as that constitutes vandalism. So basic rules: edit the article, discuss here, and only remove uncited information. I am reitterating this because your comments do not show you understand what I have been telling you. This is not a content dispute; this is me as an admin telling you to comply to our copyright policies. — Edokter • Talk • 00:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on your likelihood of being blocked over GFDL; it would more likley come from you being blocked for yet again edit-warring in the article - I thought that was clear, sorry if that was unclear. Frankly, I don't care where it is edited, so long as the edits follow the rules, are cited and have consensus (in that order). You've been given notice that if you add uncited info, it will be removed. As you are an admin, I am sure you will be able to comply. Thanks in advance. Let's move on, before you say/do something to get yourself de-sysopped. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing cited information = vandalism. And restoring vandalism isn't blockable. It falls toward the editor that wants to remove content to remove only that part which is uncited. That is the least that can be expected from a wikipedia editor. If you can not be bothered to filter out that information yourself, then don't take it out at all; in ohter words: do not leave the dirty work to others. — Edokter • Talk • 11:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Were you unclear on the whole 'let's move on' premise, or were you just seeking the last word? Let's move on, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment...there are two ways to approach this. 1) Treat this article as a definition of a companion, in which case there's the liability of becoming unencyclopedic. 2) Treat this article as a history of "the companion role" in the programme and fandom, in which case the citations are justifiable. What I'm observing is that these two things are sometimes being used interchangeably, resulting in some muddling of goals and intentions as is the case above. DonQuixote (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as there isn't a surfeit of references defining what a companion is, I am not sure a section on it is really that important. To that end, I've reframed the section; I've moved it earlier in the article and re-titled the section "What is a companion?" While there are citations, we need more citations from anyone who has specifically defined what classifies someone as a Companion: is it the act of traveling in the Tardis, listing in opening credits or recurrence in the series? I think that, for the sake of the article, these questions need to be addressed - and without the fannish trappings. We cannot cite blogs, fan forums and their ilk; we need citable references that meet our criteria for inclusion. There have been dozens of books published on DH; there must have been a definition made in one of them.

I think that, in the absence of the aforementioned citations, the article has used equal parts OR and broadcast history to paint a number of guest stars as Companions who perhaps shouldn't be. Towards the end of populating the article, we have been given multiple tables of who when and where different companions popped up for different Doctors. Very little of it seems reliably sourced as to companion status. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment added 10/07/09

The BBC loosely uses "companion" because it's an identifiable term with the show. As a marketing gimmick, it's understandable. However, it's not correct. This is even acknowledged in the episode count for Donna Noble, which notes fifteen appearances but only fourteen as companion. Her guest turn on "The Runaway Bride" does not count. In that episode, she was just a guest character. The same goes for Astrid Peth, Jackson Lake, Rosita, and Lady DeSouza. They were no more companions than the Castellan who helped Tom Baker in "The Deadly Assassin" or Lynda with a "y" a companion to Christopher Eccleston in "The Parting of the Ways." They were guest characters who provided a similar function, but were not actually companions in the long-standing tradition of the show.

My understanding of a companion is someone who is ends up traveling with the Doctor on the Tardis for some amount of time, usually because they were asked. In that regard, the Tenth Doctor's companions would be Rose Tyler, Mickey Smith, Martha Jones, Captain Jack Harkness, and Donna Noble.

Astrid Peth, Jackson Lake, Rosita, and Christina deSouza should all be delisted as companions of the Tenth. They were guest stars, and the term "companion" was applied in loose fashion. They were guest stars only, no more, no less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.171.85 (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How to mark a specific section as unreferenced?

I cannot seem to find the specific template... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

{{Unreferenced section}} (or you can use {{unsourced-section}}, which a bot will quickly change into the former). John Darrow (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, bt they didn't seem to work as well as "{ {unreferenced section|date=May 2009} }" (spacing mine) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The tl| at the beginning in my previous comment's markup is how you get a rendered page (such as this talk page) to show what a template link looks like, without it actually inserting the template. If you are trying to actually insert the template, copy what that link looks like rendered (e.g. two open braces, the template name, two close braces) rather than the source with the tl| in it. John Darrow (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart

Stale

 – I have closed this RFC on the basis that the resultant discussion is a long dispute mainly between two editors. I suggest a different process such as wp:3O is more appropriate. If another RFC is raised then it should be in a new section and expressed as a simple positive neutral question such as "Is the Brigadier a Dr Who companion?".—Teahot (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

An editor has taken it upon himself to remove the Brigadier from the list of companions, despite him being clearly and reliably sourced as such on the official BBC website [1] [2]. To prevent this from turning into an edit war, I would like to ask for an editor consensus on his inclusion. I would argue that if the BBC consider him to be a companion, then so do we. magnius (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you please assume good faith. This article went against everywhere else on Wikipedia, so I changed it. A consensus was not required. Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart cites the BBC considering him a companion, but also designates that he isn't. This has clearly been decided on previously, and so a consensus is required to change that. It's hardly my fault no one picked up that the Brigadier, Yates and Benton should not have been there for months.

Is it possible that "everywhere else on Wikipedia" has been incorrect in the way that he has been regarded. I repeat that the BBC list his as a companion, so he should be considered one on wikipedia...unless you are trying to assert that the BBC do not know what they are talking about, in which case they become an unreliable source! magnius (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort. As I have stated, if there is to be a shift in the Brigadier's status across wikipedia, it should a) be sought on the project page as it covers more than just this article and b) gain a consensus. Maybe the other articles are wrong. So go to the project page, get a consensus and change it everywhere rather than having characters considered in different ways in different articles. I am fairly impartial in the matter. What you fail to grasp is I was not pushing any sort of viewpoint with my edits, merely restoring this article to be in-line with the characters' currently considered status in Wikipedia. Which, if any discussion on them does occur, is how it should be until a consensus is reached. Articles should be made to agree with each other ASAP, without gaining a consensus for every little change. If you think that these three people should be considered companions, go to the project page and discuss. In the meantime, blatant contradictions should never be permitted. I'd prefer it if you actually read and considered what I'm saying now rather than recycling the same already-countered points again and again. U-Mos (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The argument in question - that there are multiple reliable sources identifying the characters as companions - seem to apply perfectly well to other pages. This approach to removing sourced content is absolutely ridiculous, and borders on the actively disruptive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously now. If you're not going to read what I say, don't bother replying. If you think the Brigadier should be a companion, fine, there are sources and it's a totally fair argument. It should be discussed on the PROJECT PAGE because it would have to be changed ACROSS THE PROJECT. It cannot be changed in one article and none others! That's why I removed them, not because I disagree with the sources, or even that they are companions, but because there is no consensus and it disagrees with every other article considering these characters. U-Mos (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You are assigning a policy-making weight to the project that does not exist. "The overall WikiProject hasn't signed off on it" is not a reason to remove sourced information. If the WikiProject believes itself to have the authority to remove sourced information by decree, that is something that is going to need to be settled via dispute resolution and probably ultimately some arbcom bans.

Otherwise, consistency between articles is not as big a deal as fealty to sources. "Other articles do not match this one" is not a reason to remove sourced information. Period. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I just looked at the Brigadier, Benton, and Yates articles - all three acknowledge that the characters are often viewed as companions! There isn't even an inconsistency issue! Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This comment astounds me. They aknowledge their viewing as companions, but they are not designated as such in Wikipedia. That is how these sources have been chosen to be used. To change this, there needs to be a consensus! What's so hard to understand? Look at "Template:Thirddoctorcompanions". Look at episode articles. Change all these articles or none of them. That's the choice you have. And get a consensus before making major changes! One source (yes a good source, but that is still a point for discussion) is not a reason to overhaul a great deal of pages without even discussing! U-Mos (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You are removing sourced information for a reason having nothing to do with any policy, engaging in misleading edit summaries, and misrepresenting what other articles say. This is unacceptable. Desist immediately and seek consensus for your changes. These changes got consensus months ago, and at this point the onus is on you to find a reason to defy reliable sources. Continuing to remove sourced information is, at this point, vandalism. I am not going to sort through your other changes for validity - you're the one burying disruptive changes with misleading edit summaries in the midst of long chains of edits to make reversion difficult. You may reinstate any changes that do not remove sourced material yourself. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've said what should be said repeatedly, you've ignored it and for no apparent reason have suddenly decided to resort to cheap (and largely false) accusations, patronism, arrogance and generally counter-productive behaviour. I don't think this conversation is going to go much further, do you? If you're not going to do me the courtesy of addressing my points and explaining exactly why you wish this article to disagree with the rest of the project with apparently no attempts to change any other article to match, there's very little point in this section even existing. U-Mos (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The more relevant question seems to be "why does the fact that other articles do not reflect these sources mean that we should remove sourced content from this article?" I mean, "other articles fail to adequately reflect published sources" is not a valid reason for much of anything beyond fixing those other articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And now claims of bad faith... assuming good faith is policy, I know that for fact, so please follow that rule. I'm going to write this in capitals in the hope that it finally sinks in: I DO NOT NEED CONSENSUS BECAUSE I AM RESTORING THE CURRENT STATUS ACROSS WIKIPEDIA, REMOVING EDITS THAT SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED CONSENSUS AND DID NOT IN THE FIRST PLACE! If you disagree with this, please respond rather than reverting or indeed resorting to more threats/accusations, which I find very insulting. U-Mos (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The edits reached consensus months ago. When your argument consists of shouting in all caps that you do not need consensus and that it's OK to ignore reliable sources, it's probably time to go have a nice little nap and come back later. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like refer you back to my "fucking patronising" point from before. Not helping. I've read the above section; there is no consensus, just a lack of response. And if there is some consensus you can point me to, then change every article it concerns across Wikipedia, not just this one. U-Mos (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Patronizing seems like the preferable position to swearing wildly and declaring that you don't need consensus. You're really bordering on "complete nutter" at the moment. If I hadn't looked at your edit count, I'd assume you were a crazed new account that should just be blocked for 24 hours for disruptive lunacy. Instead, I'm left wondering why an experienced editor has suddenly come unglued and decided that when one article cites a reliable source and some others don't, the problem is the article with better sourcing, not the articles that are lacking sourcing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring this latest barrage of largely exaggerated personal attacks, I say again: then change every article, not just this one. I won't revert, I won't even comment; I only changed this one because it went against so many other good articles. All or nothing; no in between point. U-Mos (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm... what policy, exactly, mandates that an editor who adds reliably sourced information is obliged to exhaustively do so in every article in which it might be relevant? Or, for that matter, mandates that inconsistencies among articles should be resolved via reversion to the most common information instead of by paying attention to the sources used? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The policy of common sense, and common decency, and actual wishing Wikipedia to be the best it can be. At least report on the project page, otherwise it will be another 4 months of this article quietly contradicting what remains the standing point across Wikipedia. That's not a good position, you must recognise that. U-Mos (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I recognize that other articles seem to be ignoring reliable sources. I see no evidence that this article is the one that is the problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I never said it was. But for such a major change it needs to have a consensus from the project before it is made. U-Mos (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The project has no authority relevant to the matter. It is not empowered to declare that articles are allowed to ignore reliable sources. Should it believe itself to be thusly empowered, as I said, it is a matter that will require the arbcom. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate it if you stopped leaping to these conclusions. I never said it had such power. I am aware of this reliable source. How to use a source is another matter. How the Brigadier's article uses it, to say he is sometimes considered a companion, is that wrong? Of course not. That is where the project comes in, and adding the UNIT people therefore requires a consensus. I can't comprehend why you are so resistant to the idea of actually discussing this matter where more people can see it. U-Mos (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#The Brigadier/Yates/Benton - companions?. I have created this section so the situation can be resolved properly. I think further talk would be better placed there, as the designation of companions is a project-wide discussion. U-Mos (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Future Companions (2)

I have reverted the page to bring back the future companions section. As I wrote elsewhere on this page, until the episodes actually air we cannot say with any authority that the listed characters will be companions. This is a future event and anything could happen between now and then. Karen Gillan may be killed by a bus tomorrow - she won't be a companion then. I think it is far more accurate to keep the characters as "Future Companions" because that is exactly what they are - characters who appear in a future episode, not ones that have already appeared. Paul75 (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

All true, but verifiability, not truth. We literally have sources from the BBC calling them companions, so they are. If Karen Gillan is killed by a bus and series 5 filming to date is scrapped, she can be removed. If they're properly sourced, there's no issue in them being there. U-Mos (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I believe the past consensus was to use BBC pre-transmission sources (since the BBC is legally prohibited from foilers), but not to use general media pre-transmission sources (since, say, the Guardian has not viewed the episode, and so is not making a judgment of the character's status as such). Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this past consensus, but I certainly agree with it. To be good enough they'd really have to be BBC sources, or reputable sources quoting people from the BBC. And we have that with Adelaide, Wilf and Amy. U-Mos (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact is, they are still FUTURE companions. The episodes have not aired, so how can they be considered COMPANIONS? We are talking about an event in the future, not a undeniable event from the past. I'm sorry, but I see not justifaction for classing a future event as something that has already happened, references or not. Paul75 (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems like future companions are a subset of the larger set "companions." Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We're not claiming it's already happened, but that doesn't mean they're not companions. I have reverted back, as your blanket revert undid alot of the work I have done on the article. I would suggest you go to WP:RfC if you feel the way I am supporting is against policy or could be improved on rather than reverting. If you do feel the need to put this section back without further discussion, please at least take the time to copy your future companions section from here and delete the future companions from the current article, thus keeping the other edits I made. U-Mos (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That;s my whole point - THEY ARE NOT COMPANIONS! Have you seen them as companions yet? It is a future event. How can Adelaide be a Companion of the 10th doctor when they episode hasn't even aired yet? I give up. Confirmed future events are entirely different to confirmed past events. Paul75 (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And Matt Smith isn't the 11th Doctor yet, but we don't list him as "Future Doctor". The article is simply listing companions as they are announced, and it is quite clear to anyone with the vaguest of interest in the subject whether they have appeared, or have yet to appear. magnius (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As I previously learnt at Talk:UNIT#Name should be changed, get over it, fiction should not be treated under the realms of present/future. What happened, is happening, will happen... it's all one. In-universe, yes, these companions haven't happened yet, but out of universe they are companions and should be listed as such. U-Mos (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Adelaide Brooke

Just a heads up Adelaide Brooke has been created. I've redirected it to The Waters of Mars, but I haven't just seen a reference that that's her name yet. Edgepedia (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There are one or two tabloids that list the Brooke surname, but nothing usable. magnius (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Susan and Romana

I added a bit of text to the section discussing the Doctor being the last of the Time Lords and the implications that has for Susan and Romana. I am not familiar with any evidence of Susan or Romana appearing in Time Lord society after they left the Doctor. One or both could have died in the Time War but I suspect they will be revealed to have survived like the Master. I made mention of the possibility in the article.