Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Dr Who main page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Who This page gets more hits than the page it was redirecting to. Hence it would make more sense to make this the main page and redirect the other page to this one. I've already cancelled the redirect and copy pasted this page over. Please unblock editing so I can finish up. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.17.160 (talk • contribs)

Um, no. Dr Who redirects here since this is the correct name for the series. I have restored redirect at Dr Who. In future, remember that consensus is required for significant changes (such as retitling an article) so it is best to bring things up on talk pages first. (btw, copy & paste is never used for page moves or renaming.) Gwinva (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody types that in. They type "Dr Who" into the wiki search. Besides, who did you consult with before totally destroying my efforts? I thought this was the encyclopedia anyone could edit. The tutorial says to dive in and make any changes I want to. Just hype I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.17.160 (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Gwinva (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the unsigned wikiuser above. It really is silly having a long title like that. Everybody knows Dr Who as 'Dr Who' or invariably the 'New Dr Who'. The old series are classic or old Dr Who. The above link should be the main page and I believe it atleast deserves some discussion and possibly a vote. I don't like the way Gwinva simply vandalised another users contribution out of hand that way. It's the sort of tyrranical behaviour which gives Wikipedia such a bad name. Gottlieb6373 (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Then start a discussion here. My immediate reversion of the content paste to a redirect was not vandalism, but essential: 1. we cannot have two identical articles on WP; 2. cut and paste moves lose history,. so any move should be done according to the accepted method. 3. Moving this page (renaming) is controversial) and should not occur without consensus. (This name has been agreed for many years, and the article reached featured article status under this name).

If you have a concern about the name of this page, then raise it here. But do be aware that WP has established naming conventions, which should be followed when naming an article. Moreover, the redirect function enables us to seamlessly direct searchers to the right page; nothing is lost by maintaining the current situation, and it has the added benefit of keeping the article at the correct title. Gwinva (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the article should indeed be kept here at "Doctor Who", as that is indeed the correct title for the series as Gwinva stated (being as I'm working on seeing as many of them as I can on DVD, in as much order as I can, I know that even the very first episode was "Doctor Who", and has been since then)... what most people type in is unfortunately, irrelevant. We have "Dr Who" as the redirect for people searching for it. umrguy42 05:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok WikiLords from the planet Admin. Whatever. Can you atleast unlock the damn page so I can do some editing. The reason I came here in the first place. Gottlieb6373 (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an admin, so I can't help you there, other to point you to the fact that, 1. the article is semi-protected (which will tell you what you need to do to be able to edit), or 2. I suppose you could still use the {{editprotected}} template here on the talk page to suggest your edits. umrguy42 05:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Gottlieb, please DO NOT continue to paste the content of Doctor Who over top of the redirect at Dr Who. Even if a page move was agreed in teh future, it is NOT done by cut and paste moves. Gwinva (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You should so not change the titles around, basically because it is officially Doctor Who, not Dr Who. Thats just like changing it to doctor who instead of Doctor Who, just because everyone types it in that way. 203.192.85.33 (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

True. Given that most readers come to Wikipedia from Google referrals, I did a check. Whether you search "dr who", "doctor who" or spelling variations of either, we still get into the top 5 hits; that's what the redirect does, so it's pointless changing it. --Rodhullandemu 12:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't even believe that the name of Doctor Who is having to be discussed here. The only time that I know of that Dr. Who was used is in the unofficial non-BBC films with Peter Cushing as the Doctor and these films are well documented in the Dr. Who movies and Dr. Who Dalek movies articles. In these two films, the Doctor was from Earth and not Galifrey!! Darkieboy236 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Subculture appeal?

This rather wonderful editorial about the appeal of Doctor Who notes that Doctor Who "mashes up romance, adventure and rubber monsters to the delight of adults and children alike. It has always had a strong geek following. And its campness has always attracted a strong gay following." Our article talks about how the programme was designed to appeal to families, and mentions the debates about its suitability for children, but doesn't really say much about how it's regarded by adults. Nor does it mention the especial appeal to "geeks and gays", which is noteworthy and verifiable. (Beyond the Telegraph piece, there's Paul Cornell's 1990s essay about how and why so much of Doctor Who fandom is gay, reprinted in License Denied.)

I was going to add a sentence about this to the "Public consciousness" section, but couldn't immediately come up with a succinct wording that I liked, and which didn't muck up the section's structure. I was working with things like this:

In addition to the programme's broad appeal to children and families, it has also been popular with science fiction fans, and its camp tendencies have made it popular in gay culture.

Do people agree that a mention of Doctor Who's appeal to these subcultures is useful and appropriate? If so, does anyone feel like finding a better wording? (Part of my problem is that the Telegraph writer did such a fine job summarizing that it's hard to paraphrase the sentiment and remain succinct.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Good find, and very much appropriate! Definitely worth including. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's useful, but i would rephrase "broad appeal to children and families", the sentence just sounds awkward there. Possibly

The programme's broad appeal attracts audiences of children and families as well as science fiction fans. Its camp tendencies have made it popular in gay culture.

Does this work? Choc chik (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely an improvement over my wording. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiatus until 2010

They've announced that there will only be 3 episodes throughout 2009, rather than the usual 14 (13 episodes plus 1 xmas special) as the show is taking a break, so I've added this information to the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proonography (talk • contribs) 16:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's been known for some time, but the show is still continuing, so I don't think it's necessary.Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's not needed in the infobox, but we've lately had a sentence about the "current status" of the programme in the lead, which I think can allow for mention of the upcoming specials and series there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Length of Article

To me it seems that the article could be shortened. The new series and the old series, while connected in some aspects, are different shows. While the new series pages can (and should) have references to the old series, the new should be split up to help with ease of navigation. Many people have only just been introduced to Doctor Who with the new series, and the new series does stand on its own.

How do people feel about the possibility of splitting this page in two? - Sclark3987 (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My general feeling is that it's a bad idea — yes, there are some senses in which the new Doctor Who is a different programme from the classic version (e.g. production), but there are also senses in which it's absolutely a continuation of the same show (e.g. narrative — the Davros who threatened to destroy the Universe last Saturday is meant to be the same character who nattered about viruses with Tom Baker in 1974, and he recognized Sarah Jane).

I suppose that an argument could be made for making the Doctor Who article more about Doctor Who as a multimedia franchise (compare the article Star Trek), and creating daughter articles on the 1963–1989 version of the series and the 2005– version; that would be in keeping with the summary style guideline. But I'm not sure that's necessary, or particularly helpful. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd also be reluctant to split this up along "old series" and "new series" lines. With Battlestar Galactica, there was a clear and distinct difference between the two versions of the show, thus warranting separate articles for each. With Doctor Who, however, there is a definite sense of continuity. In fact, I think we would be doing a disservice to new viewers if we split it, as we might give the impression that the old series doesn't really relate to the new one. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How about splitting it into seasons or Doctors? DonQuixote (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There already are seasons pages for the new series, but not the old series. I don't think the page is too long, and as the new series is a continuation of the old, it should stay as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Choc chik (talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Updating viewership

These sentences are outdated, although the fully unimpeachable sources confirming it aren't out yet:

The 2006 episode "Rise of the Cybermen" managed sixth place in the charts across the week with 9.22 million viewers.[54] The all-time highest chart placing for an episode of Doctor Who is second, for the 2007 Christmas special "Voyage Of The Damned", which received 13.31 million viewers, a feat which also made it the second most watched show of the year.

"Journey's End" got an overnight estimate of 9.4 million viewers, and seems to have placed #1 for the week. The former fact is widely reported (e.g. BBC News), but the latter so far is found only on the Doctor Who News Page (né Outpost Gallifrey). Should we update the article now, or wait for the final BARB ratings? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait for the final figures - I think Wimbledon may have overtaken them and there's also the mass confusion of overnight and final figures. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The consensus about Wimbledon seems to be that although there were more viewers watching it at some points, the overall average will be lower. But I take your point about waiting for the final ratings. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's official... 1st place, 10.57m viewers. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Top seller for BBC Worldwide?

This press release from BBC Worldwide says:

The year's five highest grossing titles were:

• Doctor Who
• Planet Earth
• Top Gear
• Spooks
• Robin Hood

The article currently notes that Doctor Who is "one of the top five grossing titles" for BBC Worldwide (per this story from The Guardian). Do you think the press release is saying that Doctor Who is the top grossing show, though? At first glance I thought that the list was alphabetical, but it's not. On the other hand, it's not explicitly numbered either. Can we use this to say "Doctor Who is the top grossing title for BBC Worldwide", or is the source too unclear to claim that? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think that making that leap, however plausible, would be original research. If the BBC don't give any ordering or figures, we shouldn't make assumptions. I've just had a quick look round, and can't find anything to suggest that this list is ordered. So I think we're stuck with "one of" for the time being. --Rodhullandemu 17:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Forum In External Links

I have a forum which is rapidly growing and is a non-profit forum. We added it to the External Links but it got removed because 'Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion.' We are not promoting the website we are giving people who enjoy the great Sci-Fi program a place to learn, discuss & chat about Doctor Who. Would we be able to add this?

Cardiff Rift Forums & Chat

Tim

That message is slightly misleading, but per this policy (paragraph 10), we don't normally link to these forums. Problem is that if we allow one, however good, everyone else will want their forum included, and it is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to do this. So we generally allow none. --Rodhullandemu 13:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(To Tim) I assume you are also User:9kelad. You may wish to check out WP:SOCK. All Grown Up Whovian 14:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If so, you either make a persuasive case for a variation from policy in this case, or you get blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. Simple as that. --Rodhullandemu 14:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, don't want to seem persnickety, but technically, the very act of pointing to a place where you're "giving" people a chance to learn, discuss, etc. is in and of itself "promoting". Sorry, but you just can't get around that fact. The only way you aren't promoting it is if you just let people stumble onto it by themselves. DonQuixote (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm so touched by Tim's generosity at providing us with this forum. It makes me want to pop open a big can of Spam.

Seriously, though... regardless of whether it's for profit or not, it's still promoting a site that's not relevant to the article. If it were some kind of official organization, such as a fan club, that would be a different matter. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 22:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

References section

In the references section, what does the Invisible Man reference have to do with Doctor Who?

217.20.17.23 (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

apparently nothing, and gone it has. --Rodhullandemu 12:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Books section

It really needs to be improved and expanded.--DrWho42 (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Dervla Kirwan as "current companion"

As pointed out above, there is little sense in using the word "current" in fiction, especially fiction dealing with time-travel. Dervla Kirwan's article alleges that she is appearing in the 2008 Christmas special, but the source for that is a dead link. All other sources I've been for this have been speculative. Accordingly, I recommend, as usual, we wait for a reliable and verifiable source to appear before adding this in. In any case, we can't yet know whether she is going to be a companion, or a guest character in the mode of Astrid Peth. --Rodhullandemu 13:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that officially Astrid was a companion, but the point is she isn't "currently" a companion until the Christmas Special airs (if she's on it). Duggy 1138 (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Brigadier as companion?

IP 193.195.15.6 is going through the UNIT era stories (chronologically from The Invasion) changing "Nicholas Courtney as Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart" from the "guests" list to a companion in the infoboxes, even giving him billing above "Katy Manning as Jo Grant" on Terror of the Autons and The Mind of Evil, which at this writing is as far as he/she has gotten. This has resulted in Courtney getting a separate credit for "The Brigade Leader" in Inferno. I feel that he is a guest in Invasion, but can't really disagree with making him a companion through the Pertwee era, although he should certainly come after the official one (Liz Shaw, Jo, or Sarah Jane Smith). I am throwing this open to discussion here out of not being able to think of a better place. How does everybody else feel about what this IP is doing? --Ted Watson (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noting it. Reverted, pending outcome of this discussion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Critlon (talk · contribs), who is probably the same person as the IP, added the Brigadier as a companion from Spearhead from Space through Day of the Daleks, and Mike Yates from Terror of the Autons on. I too can see the argument, at least for the Brigadier (Mike Yates is a more borderline matter), but agree that the Brig should be listed after Liz or Jo (as I believe he was in the credits). We can see what discussion reveals. Incidentally, in future a good place for discussions like this is the Doctor Who WikiProject. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The BBC defines Yates, Benton, and the Brigadier as companions, and is as authoritative a source on this as we can get: [1]. It is my belief that "companion" is best used to describe a category of characters as opposed to a role in a given episode - thus a rule of "ever a companion, always a companion" should apply. That is, the Brigadier is always a companion - he is a companion when he appears in Battlefield, and a companion when he appears in Web of Fear. This, I think, avoids subjective arguments and reliance on original research, and is a wholly sane definition of companion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Lix Shaw never travelled in the tardis either - so I don't see why the brig, benton and yates can't be companions. Especially as they are listed by the BBC (as noted above). 86.142.140.176 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC).

I would argue against the "once a companion, always a companion". Mickey Smith is quite clearly not a companion with the ninth doctor as he does not choose to become one till School reunion. It would also meen that the brig is a companion for his cameo two scenes in Colony in Space an Time Warrior (which he quite clearly isn't). 86.142.140.176 (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you are going to apply that criteira, then K9 isn't a companion for stories such as Power of Kroll or Leisure Hive. Stick with the "once a companion, always a companion" to be safe.Mmm commentaries (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, that involves some close parsing of individual episodes according to a definition that does not really come from any source. I think it's much easier to treat companions as a type of character, not as a role in an individual episode. For Time Warrior and Colony in Space I think we could readily mark the Brigadiers appearances as cameos while also noting that he is a companion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The Brigidier should be in the companion info box for his longest streak as a character who helps the doctor ,because if the brigidier isn't companion Liz Shaw shouldn't be either she does exactly the same to the brigidier in the companion.A companion has to have a streak,and should only be counted if she/he is regular cast.For Example returning companions who return for one story should not count as they are not regular cast.The only exception is if you are away for only story.Paragraph about wether the brigidier should be counted as a companion is by Critlon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Critlon (talk • contribs) 17:05 September 27, 2008

Then Sara Kingdom should not be a companion - she only appeared in one story, and only a couple of episodes at that. Sure, she travelled in the TARDIS, but so did other innerumable characters from the shows history, and they ain't companionsMmm commentaries (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the above user is a vandal and a sock puppet. He and User talk:82.23.110.9 both did the same vandalism on Russell T Davies. 86.142.140.176 (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That does not invalidate the point made, although I disagree with it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

not at all - I do agree that the brig should be a companion. 86.142.140.176 (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite Critlon's poor command of the English language (and the possibility he is both a sock puppet and vandal, although I doubt the latter as he appears to be acting in good faith [if little competence], at least in the matter under discussion here, and possibly even in the incorrect death notice for Davies), I see a basically good point. The Brig is not, as Phil Sandifer did contend a few postings back, a companion in The Web of Fear; he'll not qualify for that distinction until Spearhead From Space, and is a guest star in his two appearances before that serial, as well as subsequently in Mawdryn Undead and Battlefield. Similarly, Harry Sullivan stops being a companion at the end of Terror of the Zygons (literally; he refuses point blank to re-enter the TARDIS in that serial's closing moments, thereby resigning the status) and is a guest star when he turns up again in The Android Invasion. Even given that BBC site Phil S. linked in, Yates must be considered a guest star not only in Planet of the Spiders, where he is returning after his regular run just like Harry in Android, but even in Invasion of the Dinosaurs, where he is one of the villains. You just can't list a villain as a companion, otherwise the Master must be considered. However, Susan Foreman, the Brigadier and Sarah Jane Smith do qualify as companions rather than as guest stars in The Five Doctors, as in this story they are functioning in that very capacity with the first, second and third Doctors, respectively (perhaps the billing here should be "guest Doctors" and "guest companions" or something similar). Admittedly, whoever keeps billing the Brig above Jo must be stopped there. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Just on the vandal thing - I wasn't reffering to the adding of the brigadier, I was referring to his vandalism on Russell T Davies (putting in his death date). 86.142.141.10 (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're making what seems to me a number of unjustifiable assumptions. First, you are treating "companion" as a sort of formal position that can be resigned. Nothing in the show supports such a formal role. Second, you're relying on a definition of companion that is subtle in ways that do not seem to me to be easily sourced. I flatly disagree that the Brigadier is not a companion in Battlefield. I think his role in that story is a companion role. There is no good way to sort out that disagreement.

I think a huge number of problems disappear if we decide that companions are not roles in specific stories but a particular class of characters. Those characters are companions of the Doctor. Period. That is simply the type of character they are. It's a wholly reasonable definition - it treats the infobox as answering the question "What companions appear in this episode" as opposed to "who plays the role of the companion in this episode." The former is, I think, wholly reasonable. Doing so removes all but, essentially, four limit cases - Adam Mitchell, Mickey Smith, Jackie Tyler, and Sarah Kingdom. Smith is easily dealt with, being as he's listed as a companion on the BBC site. Kingdom is also fairly straightforward, given that she was in the JNT Companions book in the 80s, though she's been de-listed on the BBC site. Mitchell and Tyler are thus the only remotely tricky ones to figure out if they were ever considered companions. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't find "the former" wholly reasonable. I fully deny that somebody who played a companion should be infoboxed as such in every serial in which they ever played that character, with no consideration as to what their status is there. You'd have to do so with Liz, Jamie and Zoe in The Five Doctors, which is patently wrong. And not just because it isn't really them. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the question of "what companions appear in this episode" is an unreasonable one to ask. In fact, it seems a very sensible one to ask of an episode. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing that can be done is to look at the press releases as well as Doctor Who Magazin and books by Haines, Howe, et al. DonQuixote (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That approach is less helpful than you'd think for the odd cases - one obvious source is the JNT-penned Companions book from the 80s. It includes the Brigadier (I forget what it says of his tenure) and Sarah Kingdom (who is currently excluded by the BBC website) but excludes Benton and Yates. It also, puzzlingly, includes the Master. The Howe-Stammers-Walker specific Doctor handbooks published by Virgin, among other things, notes the various cameos in The Five Doctors with the phrase "The following companions (or hallucinatory images) also made cameo appearances," which does seem to support my argument that we ought consider companion a category of characters, not an episode-specific role. Timeframe uses a phrasing that suggests that the UNIT folks are not Companions - "The Doctor's Companions - Liz Shaw, Jo Grant and then Sarah Jane Smith - were supplemented by a regular band of UNIT personnel." And that's just what I have handy or remember clearly. The published sources are not of excessive help here - largely because the role of companion is not rigidly defined. (Indeed, an interesting question is when the term came into use to describe non-Doctor regular cast members, and how Sarah Kingdom was added to that list given that she was not a regular.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In cases like those, the press releases and production notes take precedence, and these can be found in all the above mentioned sources. Based on these, Liz, Jo and Sarah were meant to be companions whilst the Brig, et al. were meant to be supporting characters--similar to current press releases and production notes stating that Rose and Martha were meant to be companions whilst Jackie and Francine were meant to be supporting characters. Really, rather than saying who is and who isn't a companion, we can describe what the press releases and production notes stated, as well as the production teams intentions as all this is documented to one degree or another. DonQuixote (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that the decision to resort to primary sources over secondary ones is appropriate in this instance - especially given that it is unclear to me when, if at all, the idea of a "companion" as a particular role came into being. Liz Shaw is a particularly vexing one - given that the series was, when she was introduced, transitioning away from a time traveling adventure series, what exactly did "companion" mean at that point? Had the term even been put into use? If so, given that nobody was traveling with the Doctor, what did it mean? Certainly our article on Companions in general is less than clear on this point - the point where characters were referred to as or considered as companions is not clear. And it notes that Astrid Perth is a companion - problematic, as she never travels in the TARDIS - if she is a companion than I'm hard-pressed to justify why Spandrell from Deadly Assassin is not a companion - after all, he plays the assistant role in that story.

My point here is that the questions of "What is a companion" and "What does a companion mean in terms of a given story" are not clear or straightforwardly answered. Truth be told, the vast majority of problems come with the new series, which has, in general, played a bit looser with the tropes than the classic series - in the classic series the problems amount to UNIT, the Five Doctors, Liz Shaw, Nyssa in Keeper of Traken, and Deadly Assassin. The vast majority of these are easily cleared up - Liz, Nyssa, and Deadly Assassin are dealt with consistently in secondary sources. UNIT is dealt with inconsistently, but it's fairly easy to use the most lenient definitions for UNIT. (After all, secondary sources count Liz Shaw as appearing as a companion in Five Doctors - that makes the "once a companion, always a companion" argument pretty straightforward)

The new series is trickier - Mickey, Jackie, Adam, Astrid, and the tendency to have characters return after their departure makes for some difficult parsing issues. The precedent of "once a companion always a companion" from the old series squares away the returns. Mickey is counted as a companion by the BBC website, but dating his first appearance as a companion is tricky. Adam, Jackie, and Astrid are not currently counted by the BBC. But I don't know what other sources exist here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, the corresponding primary sources are referenced in the above secondary sources. Also, the various documentaries are also helpful as secondary sources (Thirty Years, DVD documentaries, etc.). DonQuixote (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, it should probably be helpful if we stopped thinking in terms of "is defined as" and started in thinking in terms of "is announced as", because in all honesty there is no rhyme or reason to whom the production crew announces as "companion". DonQuixote (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a clear history of the development of the companion as an institution in Doctor Who? I'd like to read that, actually. I'm not sure the "is announced as" is useful - there are a number of clear consensus reconsiderations of companion status - the Brigadier, Benton, Yates, and Sarah Kingdom being the obvious four - Kingdom was, it seems, elevated then dropped, while the UNIT folks were all elevated over time. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's called books, magazines and documentaries--of course, you have to use a little critical thinking to weed out sources that present opinions vs sources that document production. To take one example, in various interviews (for example, DVD documentaries and Thirty Years, etc.) Barry Letts and Terrance Dicks mention how they inherited the UNIT idea from their predecessors and how the UNIT crew were meant as supporting characters as opposed to Liz Shaw who was considered a companion. They also go on to say that Liz Shaw wasn't an effective companion since she was as smart as the Doctor and didn't need things explained to her all the time -- hence the introduction of Jo Grant. And so forth. Also, all this talk about "elevated" and "dropped" and "reconsiderations" are describing fan whims.

As to Sarah Kingdom...I need to do a little research on her (probably Doctor Who: The Early Years or DWM), because I can't remember her specifics off-hand. However, there are many secondary sources (such as Haine's Doctor Who: A Celebration and the documentary (More Than) Thirty Years in the TARDIS) which consider her as a companion.

Basically, what it boils down to is reliable sources, critical thinking and peer review. DonQuixote (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

When referring to season 7, books, magazines and documentaries are going to be stuff that came out years and decades later - it's just as much a revision as the later fan whims. Clearly sources from the 80s, 90s, and beyond consider Sarah Kingdom a companion. What's less clear to me is that Nation and Spooner, writing an early episode of Doctor Who, were even thinking of "Companion" as a concept. Similarly, I'm not sure that Letts and Dicks when establishing Liz and the UNIT crew in season 7 had the idea in mind. (And I don't remember the bit you're describing here from More than 30 Years, nor do I strongly feel like watching it again. Can you give the line you're thinking of as a quote?) Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And to be clear, I don't think that the Haines or More than 30 Years sources that list Kingdom as a companion are any better than fan whims. Almost any attempt to exhaustively list companions is going to be a modern source that's based on fan whims. I do not see Haines, the More than 30 years documentary, or the Howe-Stammers-Walker books as having any particular authority beyond their official status, which at least shows that they represent the view of the BBC at the time they were published. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(deindent some) Reliable source -- that's the key. Books, magazines and documentaries are reliable when talking about season 7 (or any other season) whilst they cite primary sources (such as Letts and Dicks interviews in documentaries). If they just list something, they're just listing it and not providing any citation. That's why I said I needed to research Sarah Kingdom a little more.

As for Liz Shaw and UNIT. I'm pulling from several sources. Recent interviews with Letts and Dicks from DVD supplements (can't remember which DVD, but it was released in 2008) mentioned how they inherited UNIT from their predecessors. The part where Liz was too smart for the audience is from Thirty Years. Anyway, the point is "research" -- we have to pull the information from reliable secondary sources.

Up till now, I really didn't understand why the wiki-police insisted on an "out-of-universe" style for the articles. Now I'm beginning to understand. "In-universe" style is prone to POV and OR as well as arguments such as this ("disputed companions" etc.). "Out-of-universe" style requires citing reliable secondary sources. In other words, we should move away from "a companion is defined as" to "history/role of the companion in terms of the show/production". DonQuixote (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the solution of changing the header to drop "Companions" entirely, and instead note any recurring characters who appear in the story? So companions, and also a limited number of other characters - a handful of recurring Time Lords, Davros, and a few others. That is, instead of trying to thread the needle here, just broaden it and provide more information. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, the previous method was to just copy the end credits verbatim. This should solve the "companion" issue in the infobox. However, this still leaves the companion template and companion article (particularly whether or not to include the Brigadier) unresolved. DonQuixote (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd still bump multi-serial characters ahead of any non-multi-serial characters. So Nyssa in Keeper of Traken ahead of anyone but the Doctor, Adric, and the Master. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the question of "what companions appear in this episode" is an unrerasonable one to ask.

You indicated two ways to handle this situation, and between the two, I have absolutely no doubt that the other is the more reasonable: An actor/character should not be listed in a serial's infobox as a companion if they do not function in that story as one. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Baloney. One of the most important basic facts of a serial is what major characters from the series appear in it. Companions are, by definition, major characters from the series - dropping that information out of a front and center position in the infobox serves to obscure valuable information for the slender gain of pedantic arguments that fans have been bickering about, in some cases, for decades. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Baloney, yourself. You are refusing to deal with my point that we are talking about infoboxes that are each tied to one particular story, and whether or not the character functions as a companion in that story is extremely relevant to whether or not they should be listed as such where there names appear in that box. Lethbridge-Stewart (later the Brigadier) cannot reasonably be labelled a companion in The Web of Fear as he was not in any way shape or form considered a potential regular of any kind at the time that this story was written, recorded and transmitted. The only cases in the original series with any ambiguity at all are the Brig in The Invasion, Mawdryn Undead and Battlefield, and Harry Sullivan in The Android Invasion, but there's very little of it in any of those. The only potential argument against this position is that it might constitute original research. Although I do like the "settlement" in what is at this time the bottom posting, and I acknowledge that it's yours, it doesn't address this at all. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It might constitute original research? Yes, I think that elevating a fanwank argument about the nature of an ill-defined term as it relates to specific episodes indeed might constitute original research. That's the whole point of asking the less debatable question. To get away from subjective judgment calls that have been the subject of wankery for decades. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Fanwank" my @$$! I'm done wasting my time trying to reason with you. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I think, actually, that "In this specific episode of Doctor Who, is the Brigadier a companion or just a former companion who is reappearing" is as good an example of fanwank as one can readily produce. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The definition of companion is disputed, which Wikipedia cannot resolve. Also, the definition of when a character becomes and ceases to be a companion is also disputed, and Wikipedia cannot resolve that dispute either. Whatever the basis chosen for listing a character in the companion field on the infobox, that basis cannot be one that takes a point of view on either or both of those disputes. Similarly we can't make a choice on whether one possible companion character is more or less important that another; whose opinion as to what counts as being important are we using? But I agree that we shouldn't eliminate the entry entirely, as it is a natural question, albeit one often without a simple answer. I suggest that we include all characters appearing in the episode who are included in the list in the companions article, but that we find some way of indicating which ones whose status as companion (whether in the particular story or generally) may be disputed. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Or...we can just simply go with what the production crew says. The point is that the "definition" of companion changes with each production crew and therefore there isn't "one" definition for a companion. In this regard, we should shift from our perspective from "companion definition" to "production history". DonQuixote (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I mean, we're dealing with maybe a half dozen characters who are in any sort of border state. Three UNIT characters, Sarah Kingdom, Mickey, Jackie, Astrid. Seven. For those seven, just describe what the various sources say and leave it at that. That solves the article. Then it's just the template - I'd be fine with breaking those seven to their own line in the template. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep the article and the template distinct. The article itself can go into the different definitions; what I'm talking about here is the info box. At the moment it has a line headed 'Companion' to which various characters are appended. The meaning of the heading is itself unclear - does it mean a character who has the general status of 'companion' who appears in this story, or that such a character has the status of companion in the story itself? And listing a character here is problematical, because it is, on the face of it, a statement that such a character is a companion. This is a highly disputed area, which arouses a lot of passions, which is why it's producing so many editing disputes. We have to have a format that recognises the dispute(s) and doesn't appear (whether intentionally or not) to come down on one side or another. But we don't have a great deal of space. The simplest solution I can think of - apart from eliminating the entry entirely - is to asterisk the disputed characters and then add (* = status disputed) - though the target of the link itself needs improving.

Although there are a small number of characters whose general status is disputed (I'd add Liz Shaw and Grace Holloway to your list), there are additional ones about whom there are disputes as to when they are companions (you cite Nyssa, but there's also Tegan and Sarah Jane and probably others). Cuddlyopedia (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support an asterisk for any character who is excluded from an otherwise comprehensive list of companions that covers that character's era. I think that ends up covering Kingdom (due to the BBC's exclusion), Benton and Yates (JNT excludes them). But I do not know of any source endeavoring to be comprehensive that excludes the Brigadier or Liz Shaw. I don't know about Grace, Astrid, or Adam. To my knowledge, nothing excludes Mickey. But I would put the threshold for exclusion thusly - so to start, only Sarah Kingdom, Benton, and Yates should be asterisked. And I wouldn't use "disputed." I'd use "some sources do not count this companion." As the argument tends to be less an argument for exclusion as an omission without comment. I know of few reliable sources that actively say "X is not a companion." Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We cannot limit our sources to comprehensive lists. A reliable source that goes into depth about one character, including whether they are a companion or not, must surely be taken into account. Otherwise we run the risk of misrepresenting the position by partial selection of sources. Whether or not the Brigadier is a companion is strongly disputed, as anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of Doctor Who is well aware. That there are such disputes is the factual position, and sources should be obtained to reflect the actual position in reality. As for your alternative of 'some sources do not count this companion'; the use of 'this companion' presupposes that the character is a companion, which is the very point at issue, and 'some sources' is a suggestive hint as to what the correct view is. As a further alternative, I suggest 'companion status debated'. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that we limit our sources to comprehensive lists. However, the claim that a character who other sources claim is a companion is not a companion is a tricky one - I'm unaware of much in the way of reliable sources (as opposed to fan debates, which are not reliable sources for our purposes) that make the negative judgment here - there's really only "is a companion" or the closest equivalent to the negative judgment, "is left off of a list of all companions." I mean, I'm open to other alternatives, but I'm unaware of a reliable source that argues that the Brigadier is not a companion, or that actively uses the "not companion" label. I have a vague sense that the 20th Anniversary Celebration book leaves him off the list of companions, but that's about the best I can do to figure out an actual source for the claim that his status is debated. Unless maybe there's some reliable source about the ten most tiresome arguments in Doctor Who fandom or something that has the Brigadier companion debate, the Season 6B theory, and some other perennial bits of fan discussion that we could use. But otherwise, it's hard to find an active claim of "not a companion" somewhere. Which is why I'm hesitant about "disputed" or "debated" - I'm not convinced that the dispute or debate generally happens in a reliable source. Hence my preference for defaulting to a form that deals with the question of whether the character is counted in all of the numerous comprehensive lists of companions. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The only people who really debate whether someone is a companion are fans. Doesn't putting "disputed" venture into WP:POV when most sources list him as a companion? 86.131.240.132 (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, which is why I'm OK with noting the dispute when sources clearly exclude the character. But only when it's a clear and conscious exclusion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Using the word "disputed" in any case is not appropriate, as it suggests a "fan" dispute and is therefore unencyclopedic, unless somehow there a sourced "dispute" somewhere, which is not the case. The reality is simply that some sources, by omission, may suggest that a character is not a companion, while applying the agreed definition would lead to the conclusion that they are. So, here's my solution: Instead of "disputed" I suggest "inconsistent sources" be used instead. —Shübop "Shada Ng" Âlang 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is that unless we have a citeable source that shows the producers wanted him as a companion during his time on the show, then he's not. Letts and Dicks seem to imply in their interviews that, during their time, the Third Doctor only had one companion per season and the rest were supporting characters. There is no "dispute" because Letts and Dicks haven't disputed themselves. Any arbitrary list, whatever the source, is merely presenting a POV unless they cite production documents or quote people who were involved in the production of the show -- such as Letts and Dicks. DonQuixote (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Seem to imply" is a pretty slender reed on which to hang the exclusion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I said "seem to imply" because I hadn't done any research other than recalling a few interviews. Anyway, it's a lot more substantial than listing the Brig as a companion simply because you or I or some other fan wish him to be one. The point is, we need to be able to cite sources which themselves cite production documents or people involved in the production -- that is, we need to do some research. DonQuixote (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We need to be careful that the requirement for verifiable sources doesn't lead us into an even worse faux pas - being wrong is far more unencyclopediadic than being unsourced. And dismissing arguments as merely fan based is problematic when dealing with something like 'companion' whose origin is a fan conceptual construct in the first place. It was the fans who came up with the idea and it only bled into production usage after interactions between the production team and the fans (including members of the production team who were fans); and after books were written that were targeted at the fans and constructed accordingly (and were often written by fans). Also, the position that only the production team's opinion as to who is and is not a companion counts is itself a POV - the phenomena of divergences of opinion between genre production teams and their fan base have been the subject of scholarly research (Buffy is a notable example) discussing who 'owns' a show, and it's not Wikipedia's job to come down on one side or the other. All of which is, I suppose, a long-winded way of saying that we obviously need to sort out the companion article first, before settling on the meaning of a line in an info-box! :) Cuddlyopedia (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My only concern about fan debate is sourcing - there are few (if any) external studies on Doctor Who fandom that would establish statements like this via reliable sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Fans may have come up with the word "companion" to describe a class of characters, but it was the production crew that came up with Viki, Steven Taylor, Dodo Chaplet, etc. You can't get any more encyclopedic than describing production history. DonQuixote (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes - but if the entire concept of a companion is a fan construction, some important issues come up. First, when did the idea of a companion get established by fans? Because whenever that is, no character before that point can possibly be sourced as a companion based on production info. Second, the entire approach commits the intentional fallacy in a way I find problematic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

But the point is that the entire concept isn't a fan construction. To keep the fandom out of the argument for a bit, the production crew created the role of main character and main supporting character(s). Granted the importance of the character relationships changed over time, but this is well documented and can be described within the context of the show's history. As to your point of intentional fallacy -- it only applies if we're criticising the programme. We're not, we are trying to present the history of the show -- the "biography" part of the intentional fallacy article. The bottom line is that, nowadays, we can refer to a host of sources that document production and step away from the fannish "definitions" and POVs. DonQuixote (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, but in that case you get to a bigger problem on the UNIT characters - because the distinction of "main supporting characters" is redundant - Doctor Who, other than the UNIT characters, had no regular supporting characters that were not clearly companions. So the production history there becomes even muddier, because if the UNIT characters aren't companions then they're something that's never appeared in Doctor Who before. Which means they're a major change to the entire way supporting characters are conceived of. This has just as much impact for how we consider Liz and Jo as it does for the Brigadier - neither can be said to be thought of by the production team in exactly the same way as Jamie and Zoe were the season before.

I also think that, despite the difficulty of sourcing, audience response (aka fannish) approaches need to be considered. Hence the JNT book, the BBC list, and other "after the fact" sources that deal with the episodes not from a production standpoint but from a looking back standpoint. I think these are just as important as production history, and in some ways more important because they often involve less reading of tea leaves. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

See, now you're getting it. We can't limit ourselves to the fannish definiton of "companion" because that's just a fan's way of connecting the dots. The production history changes what a companion is because the production team changes every odd year or so. In the case of Letts and Dicks, Liz, Jo and Sarah were the main supporting characters that the audience could identify with (like Rose and Martha in the current show) whilst the Brig et al were the supporting characters in Earth-based stories (like Jackie and Francine).

And you have a point that we can't ignore JNT's book or the BBC list, but sources that cite production documents and people involved in the production take precedence because they're refering to "as they occur" documentation rather than "after the fact", which is the case with the former. DonQuixote (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at summary, if not consensus

I've stayed out of this argument up till now, mainly because the whole "is she/isn't she a companion" debate is almost as tiresome as UNIT dating. But I think that we might be getting close to a consensus on this. Here's what I see:

Reliable sources on "who is a companion"

• BBC website (Classic, modern
• Doctor Who: The Companions by Nathan-Turner, 1985
• Doctor Who: Companions by Howe and Stammers, 1995
• original production documents
• contemporaneous publicity, press releases and newspaper stories

There are going to be very few cases in which there are any discrepancies between these sources. In those cases, the sensible and NPOV thing to do is to have a reference noting which source says what. So we can have a note in "Voyage of the Damned" pointing out that these sources (BBC press release, newspaper coverage, etc.) describe Astrid as "the Doctor's new companion", but this source (BBC website) does not include her in its list. In any disputed case, the proper thing to do is to note which sources say what and let the reader make up his or her mind.

Questions of "when someone is and isn't a companion"

It shouldn't be too difficult to find sources saying that Mickey "becomes a companion" in Series 2. (I think that Noel Clarke said as much himself in a DWM interview.) So we can omit him from the "companion" field in Series 1, and include him beginning with "School Reunion". Companions who return (Sarah Jane, the Brig, Jamie and the "Five Doctors" returnees) can be included in the "companion" field with a note saying something like "Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart, widely regarded as a companion<insert refs here> returns in this story" for Mawdryn Undead, or "Colonel Lethbridge-Stewart, who later became a regular character in the series and is widely regarded as a companion<insert refs>, makes his debut in this serial" for The Web of Fear. As for Nyssa, are there any sources that actually say "Nyssa is not a companion until Logopolis? Howe and Stammers say, "the decision to include Nyssa as a regular character came after [Byrne] had delivered the completed scripts for the story," and the BBC's guide page simply says, "Travelled with the Doctor between Keeper of Traken and Terminus." If there is some reliable source (that is, not one of us extrapolating from the fact that she doesn't travel with the Doctor until Logopolis) that says she "becomes a companion" in Logopolis, then we can include that in a note as well.

In short, I suggest:

• For any character who is named as a companion in a reliable source, list them in the infobox in all stories they appear in.
• When there is a dispute between reliable sources, note it in a footnote.
• For characters such as the Brigadier, Benton, Yates and Mickey who "become" recurring characters and are later regarded as companions, include them in the infobox for all appearances and include a footnote indicating when they became regular characters.

Does anyone have a problem with this proposal? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You're missing a few sources that are fine for judging companions, and I'm a little hesitant about press just because I don't know that I care if a newspaper makes mention of a character as a companion in reviewing an episode or whatever. But mostly, I agree. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

One other possible suggestion which I'll throw open to discussion:

• For characters who appear more than once but are not treated as companions by any reliable source, such as the Master in Season 8, Jackie, and perhaps even characters like the Monk, Corporal Bell, Glitz and Harriet Jones, create an optional field in the infobox for "recurring characters", to place them above the other cast. (One problem with this suggestion: how to handle characters who recur but are played by different actors, such as Borusa, Davros and Omega.)

I'd be interested to hear feedback on this suggestion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

For an episode article, we can treat characters as what recurs, not actors. I have no problem with Borusa, the Master, etc always appearing above the rest of the cast no matter who plays them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I definitely like the "recurring characters" distinction in the infobox, sounds like a good compromise IMO. umrguy42 22:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Recurring characters" sounds good. DonQuixote (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)