Template talk:Tenth Doctor companions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Doctor Who (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


Inelegant, badly-crafted template that serves no useful purpose. Why not delete?--Rambutan (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead if you want to. I merely finished what the other editor started out of boredom. Didn't seem right to only have the first two lying around. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What about K-9 and Sarah Jane?[edit]

Wouldn't Sarah Jane Smith and K-9 be one of the Doctor's companions for the episode "School Reunion?"SolidShroom 00:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Sarah Jane and K-9 are both past companions, but did not play a companion role in School Reunion. 08:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why Not Jack?[edit]

Why shouldn't Jack be in the template? We know he's going to be in the final three episodes. If we don't have Jack because Utopia has not yet aired then we should have Martha on anything after The Lazarus Experiment. --OZ 17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Martha is current, and it is convenient to put her for the whole series. Jack is not current. WP:CRYSTAL. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, Martha is established as a companion for the series, we don't know in what way Jack is coming back. Similarly, Mickey isn't listed as a companion for the episodes he appears in before "School Reunion". --Brian Olsen 18:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Which part of WP:CRYSTAL? Nothing I can see there --OZ 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I may be wrong here, but I believe that both Davies and Barrowman have both stated repeatedly that Barrowman would be in the third series, and now it's in the can I expect that they've even confirmed that he filmed in this series. I think this may be verifiable enough for him to be included as a companion, even though those episodes in which he travels in the Tardis haven't aired yet. --Tony Sidaway 11:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite simply, despite probability and even confirmation, Wikipedia cannot predict about fictional things before they've happened. He's not a tenth doctor companion yet, although he will be. Leave it until the episodes air, will it kill you?~ZytheTalk to me! 11:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not? All expected plot is included on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and Snakehead (novel). Why not this???????Lizzie Harrison 16:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because "X" is done incorrectly, doesn't mean "Y" should be done in the same manner. Or, "X" and "Y" are not adequate comparisons: the degree of likelihood that a novel that is currently being printed will have its production halted is much less than that of a TV series whose existence relies upon the success of the 3-6 episodes before it. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not about likelihood, it's about Wikipedia not being a crystal ball. Essentially, by adding it, you're stating it's true, when it isn't... yet. However it's perfectly find to add a note saying which episodes of Doctor Who Jack is scheduled to appear in, which has been done and sourced. But as of yet, the fictional events you would be referring haven't been ... canonized, made real, happened.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
If something cannot be put on an article because it has not happened howcome Rose and Martha are there, and the Doctor and Donna for that matter. If everything has to have absolute concrete evidence no future event could ever be written about, which sounds stupid to me, its like not being able to say 2009 will follow 2008 because its in the future. It is common knowledge that Rose is returning, in just the same way as it is common knowledge that Jack is returning, (as John Barrowman stated he would return, on The Paul O'Grady Show on 4/4/08), so why is only ever Jack removed from the template? Ian42 (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Can Jack be added in for the last two episodes now please? Tphi (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested Change[edit]

Could someone change "Rose" "Mickey" "Donna" and "Martha" to "Rose Tyler" "Mickey Smith" "Donna Noble" and "Martha Jones" to maintain consistency with the other Companion templates? Thanks. --OZOO (vote saxon) 15:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

First names only[edit]

I reverted to first names because the full names make the template look even more ugly than it already is.

Series 4/Donna[edit]

I have reverted to not including series 4/Donna in the template yet again. How can an encyclopaedia claim this? Filming hasn't even begun yet - anything might change. Tate might get injured - how silly would any encyclopaedia look? This template can only be filled in once we have a clear evidence that she has filmed every episode, and clear evidence of how many stores there will be, too (cf this year, when the last story was in three parts when we were told, initially, it was two). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stephenb (Talk) 07:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How about Astrid (Kylie Minogue's character)? We have confirmation of the name[1] and the first in-costume image[2]. This one's started filming, and there's already a slot for the episode on the temlpate. I'm being bold and slotting her in. Radagast 23:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Is she a companion though? All descriptions so far seem to state that she's a primary character, but not a companion. I've removed her until we get some more infomaton. --OZOO (What?) 09:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is my understanding, in the same way that Donna was in her first appearance. I think we're being a little pedantic. As things are announced, I think we can put them in, rather than wait for absolute proof. Wikipedia, after all, is a living document, unlike a paper-bound encyclopedia. Metebelis 23:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Just wait until it airs.~ZytheTalk to me! 23:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Russell T. Davies has already described Astrid as a one-off companion on the official BBC Doctor Who website, (citation available on the "Voyage of the Damned" page). Why should the template not reflect this? Wolf of Fenric 21:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It has been confirmed by official sources that Astrid will be in the christmas special, and that Donna will appear in all series 4 episodes. The template should reflect this. The information may change, but
"how silly would any encyclopaedia look?"
is not an issue, because wikipedia can be edited to reflect any changes in a matter of seconds. StuartDD ( tc ) 11:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Rose should now be added to episodes 11-13 of series 4 I believe. It has been confirmed she is in a 3-part finale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottevans05 (talkcontribs) 18:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Has it been confirmed that she is in the last three? StuartDD contributions 20:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Why are people so concerned about breaking WP:CRYSTAL here, when the exact same information is given on other pages. The serials page, the companion page, the Christmas special page and when we start them, the individual episode pages. These pages will be edited to give future information once we have a source for it, but when the SAME information is put here, it is breaking WP:CRYSTAL. StuartDD ( tc ) 11:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The template does not distinguish between what has aired and what has not.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Just now, it has Donna for all series 4 - which has been confirmed. the episode numbers are "TBA" - which show that they haven't yet broadcast. (if they had been, it would not be "TBA"). StuartDD ( tc ) 09:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Leave Series 1 + CIN out.[edit]

'Parting of the Ways' should be left out of the template as it counted as a Ninth Doctor serial. The CIN speicals are not actual episodes, so they should be left out. We don't see 'A Fix With the Sontarans' with the 6th Doctor order do we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancingcyberman (talkcontribs) 10:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue for the inclusion of the CHildren in Need specials, certainly Doctor Who:Children in Need was official, and Time Crash may well be to. I certainly think that they are part of the story. In regard to A Fix with Sontarans, that was not an official story. I don't agree with Parting of the Ways myself, the argument for it's inclusion was made here. StuartDD contributions 14:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Infinite Quest and Attack of the Graske[edit]

Should we include these in the template? If so, where do we put them, and what do we do for Martha in Infinite Quest to avoid confusion over when she left? StuartDD contributions 20:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, neither fit into a induvidual series. They could be refered to as Spin-Off's.

Well, we have different sections for them in the template, just like we do on the serials page. StuartDD contributions 10:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
TIQ fits somewhere between 42 and Utopia (according to the wiki). Given it's not clear whether it's canon or not (so, to include it would mean also having to include all the tenth Doctor novels and comic strips, which would soon make the template too big) I don't believe it should be listed. (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know it fits between 42 and Utopia, that was why I used blue rather than the standard colour. I think it should be in, because it is on the serials page - and I can't understand why people are happy for something to be in the serials page, but not here. StuartDD contributions 13:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said on the edit - they are both counted by the BBC, so we should have them here. StuartDD contributions 15:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed AOTG and TC, for the simple fact that they have no companions. And since this template's pupose is only to list companions, I saw no point in having them listed. PS. I hope you like the new design... EdokterTalk 14:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The designs good, but I don't really agree with not-including those stories. Other templates list some things that have no companions (namely Deadly Assassin in fourth Doctor and some books in Eighth doctor novels). i think they should stay to show there is no companion - otherwise it may confuse people. StuartDD contributions 15:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the blanket revert, but as I said above, listing episodes with no companions is pointless. If Deadly Assasin is indeed in one of the other templates, it should be removed. This is not the list of all stories, but a list of companions and when they appeared. EdokterTalk 15:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think they should be left in to show there is no companion - otherwise people may be confused as to why they are not listed. Also - TIQ is not a continuation from series 3. StuartDD contributions 15:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The template does not necessarely denote continuity, just the presense of a companion. There are also templates that have gaps in the stories, notably "Mission to the Unknown" on the First Doctor template. Plus... Anything not having a companion just clutters up the template. EdokterTalk 15:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I take your point about TIQ, but I still say we still should make it clear that there is no companion in stories like Deadly Assasin. StuartDD contributions 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Should that also be the case specials like AOTG and TC? They aren't regular episodes anyway. EdokterTalk 17:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I still don't think that's the main purpose of this template, which is showing in what stories they do appear. Shall we ask on the Project page? EdokterTalk 15:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already left a note about this discussion on that page. StuartDD contributions 15:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say how great the new template is? Well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancingcyberman (talkcontribs) 16:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can. Thanks. EdokterTalk 17:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

CIN & TIQ[edit]

I really think TIQ should be removed. It is unclear whether it is canon or not and also its positioning on this template is erroneous as canon or not, it does not take place in between "The Last of the Time Lords" and "Voyage of the Damned" as it currently appears. "Time Crash" plugs in that groove. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Canon is not the issue. I've removed them simply because those episodes have no companions, so it seems a bit pointless to list them in the first place. Plus, the template is already a bit crowded as it is, and the Tenth Doctor is going to be around for a while... EdokterTalk 11:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
As I said, canon or not, The Infinite Quest looks wrong positioned there. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Sorry, mixing up my episodes... Anyway, "The Infinite Quest" is regarded canon, and placement would always be difficult, as it was aired intertwined with series 3. I also stated before that this template does not denote story chronology, only presense, and if there is any order to follow, it is the order of broadcasting. The full serial was aired after on the same day as LOTTL, so that it it's proper place. I'm putting it back in. EdokterTalk 23:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well either that, or the other non-regular episodes (CIN in this case) should go as well... EdokterTalk 00:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I know that this doesn't have to be chronological - but how about having a separate block for Martha's appearance in TIQ as a compramise. StuartDD contributions 19:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That would only add clutter again. The more I think about it... how about just leaving the non-Xmas specials out? EdokterTalk 19:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Its been said that Martha is back for 5 episodes in Series 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancingcyberman (talkcontribs)

We know... but we don't yet know which episodes beside 4 and 5. EdokterTalk 18:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but nowhere has The Infinite Quest been declared as officially being "regarded canon". Everywhere I have seen it talked about it has been referred to as being unclear in its canonicity. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Make up your mind[edit]

Can we make up our mind as to what (not) to include, please? Either CIN, AOTG and TIQ go in, or they go out. EdokterTalk 13:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

People seem to have a problem with TIQ and Attack of the Graske in general, so I think we need to have a wider talk on this. I think they should ALL be in - but I'm not going to do it without some sort of agreement. StuartDD contributions 11:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Right now, I'm leaning to leaving them all out, and only include the regular episodes. EdokterTalk 14:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that AOTG and TIQ should be left out. CIN should definitely be in as it features Rose. I also would quite like The Deadly Assassin back on the Fourth Doctor and Time Crash back here - just shows that companion-less episodes are rare. However, I could understand if TDA and TC stay out. Like, I say CIN is the only one that should definitely be in by my thinking. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It would lean towards WOF's idea - the CIN episodes fit, and we should show that the epsiodes without a companion, have no companion. StuartDD contributions 19:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Another case for having those stories with no companions is to avoid confusion of the novel/audio templates. Big finish releases the audios for several doctors - so 102 is not on the eighth doctor template as it was a fifth doctor audio - but not including those without a companion may lead to confusion as people may think 102 has no companion, or that the one missinh were with other doctors. StuartDD contributions 16:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, CIN should stay (even though it's only a scene). I still don't see the point in including episodes that have no companion; The article for TDA for example already mentions this. And i don't think it's confusing at all... give the reader a little more credit. If we must include that info, I'd rather do it as a footnote, but not in the table itself. EdokterTalk 17:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for giving the reader credit, but I assume that as editors of this template we're all Doctor Who fans who know all this type of thing in detail and so know automatically why there are gaps in the sequential order of stories displayed in that bar of the template. I doubt a casual reader or newer Doctor Who fan would no this type of thing straight away. I'll leave it as is for now, but if others agree TDA and TC should be displayed on their respective templates, I'm with them. I'm just glad CIN stays. (Oh and to throw another spanner in the works, whilst it is stock footage from the previous episode and she is uncredited, "Time Crash" does open with Martha...The whole of "Time Crash" fits in a groove in TLOTT...) Wolf of Fenric (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

3 in 1[edit]

I'm pretty sure it's Episode 11 that is the Doctor-less episode in Series 4, (from it being in the rough position that both "Love & Monsters" and "Blink" featuring Donna, Martha and Rose - but I can't update the template as I'm assuming this and do not have a source. I doubt the Doctor-less and Rose-featuring episode one would be earlier judging by past precedent, Billie's later filming dates and earlier episodes featuring on the Series 4 trailer. Unfortunately, for all I know for sure - it could be one episode of a two-parter. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What makes you so sure there will be a doctor-less episode to begin with? EdokterTalk 22:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Can someone add Rose to this. DWM says she returns in episode 11. I love Doctor Who (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it state if she returns as a companion? EdokterTalk 13:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it does. I love Doctor Who (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Rose and Martha in the finale[edit]

i removed Rose and Martha from this because there is no proof that they are in the finale, or that they will be companions (and not just guest stars, cameo rolls, flashbacks or dream sewquences). And why are they on here but not allowed in the article page? (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There are sources to confirm them ALL in the finale. As for your latter question, ask TreasuryTag.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm just going ahead and add Rose to 4.12 and 4.13, as the BBC cast lists/summaries/promo pics confirm she's in it. (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


Can Mickey be credited for the final episode? He's credited as a companion previously in the template, on the official website and in the Tenth Doctor's article. Tphi (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Jackie and Mickey should be in a note, possibly along with Harriet, Gwen, Ianto and Francine as they were in the spillover credits. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I dunno about anyone else as they weren't officially companions, which this be a template specifically for. I've added in Mickey though, figured out how to edit the template to split the final episode section so he is in there and correctly listed as just for the final part of the finale. Tphi (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The website does not mention if Mickey is a companion in the last episode. The template should follow the lead of the episode's article. EdokterTalk 11:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
But why not a note? Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Because this is a navbox, not an article. EdokterTalk 23:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
That's no excuse, templates have notes often as well. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that notes fall out of the scope of this template. That is best left to the articles in which the template appear. The template should reflect the articles, not the other way around. EdokterTalk 20:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The official BBC website lists him as a companion. Therefore he counts —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to get him recognised as a companion on the talk page for Journey's End. Please contribute your thoughts here Tphi (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't checked the website itself but apparently he's listed as a series four companion, which is pretty damn official. And even if Mickey gets added I think at the bottom of the template the others should be listed, I think I know a way to make it look attractive and not clutter up the template. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Army of Ghosts[edit]

I added him for the series 2 finale, but was reverted because "Mickey was not a companion" [3]. Why is he not a companion? He's no more (or less) a companion there than in Journey's End. (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The site deems him a companion. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't explain why he isn't one in Army of Ghosts. (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Christina and Adelaide[edit]

Shouldn't they add these 2 future companions to the templates? I cant do it, could someone else try? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We have no confirmed information that they are going to be companions. EdokterTalk 22:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


Can he now be put as the companion for the final specials, per RTD's confirmation on BBC's Breakfast this morning? Tphi (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


What about Donna? She has been confirmed for the last two specials. Cargoking (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen a relibale source yet. The only one given (a podcast) seems down). EdokterTalk 13:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, listened to the show, and Tate will be there, but not necessarely as a companion. EdokterTalk 14:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Second row[edit]

If there has to be a second row of these, could series four be moved down there to even it out a little? MultipleTom (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd like to see how it looks in one row. The 2009 Xmas specials could be condensed into one "story" since they are such Tphi (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
One row will be problematic; won't fit on 1024. I'll see about moving series 4, but that requires some puzzling. EdokterTalk 18:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Good work dude, I think it looks better now Tphi (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Turn Left[edit]

Was Rose really a companion in this episode, she had a big roll but she never even saw the Doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SammynSophie (talkcontribs) 22:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


I had added arrows to the table to show that Series 3 and Martha continue down to the next row, but it got reverted. Now I'll admit that arrows might not be the best way to do it, but right now it looks like they just end. Unless there's a more appropriate place to split the table that's not right in the middle of a series or character run I think there should probably be something to show that the two rows are continuous. --DocNox (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The arrows link to the next or previous templates. It is pretty obvious both rows are part of the same template. Edokter (talk) — 23:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

These navboxes are vastly overcomplicated[edit]

This template should be a simple, readable affair allowing users to jump between existing articles for the Tenth Doctor's companions. Instead, it's a massively complex chart, full of empty whitespace, repetitive unlinked text, unnecessary links to about seventy different irrelevant episode articles (each hidden behind an incomprehensible alphanumeric code), and links to non-articles like different sections of the main serials page, to the point that all the template's groups are actually doubled in order to accommodate its size. The template hasn't been modified much since its creation in 2007, and it shows – it seems the original creators were trying to encompass a huge amount of information about exactly how each companion fits into the arc of each series and episode, which simply isn't what navboxes are for. I suggest a massive simplification along the following lines:

People might want to split this into a couple of groups – maybe one for main companions, one for recurring companions, and one for one-off companions. Regardless, the result will be a much more useful and readable template. As a bonus, we make room to include the characters' full names. I would also like to simplify every other Doctor Who companion template – they're all ridiculously bloated, but I figured more people would see a message here. Does anyone have any objections to this? —Flax5 22:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I admit they exceed the purpose of a navbox, but it does double as a table outlining the companions' tenures throughout the show's history. The 'alfanumerics' are the episode numbers, and clearly marked as such. I'd like to find out what ohters think. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
They are a useful indication of the importance of a character to the accompanying Doctor's tenure - something that would be lost in a simple list. Splitting companions into different groups would make for a lot of white space too. Let's leave them as is. Tphi (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that a graph showing the importance of each companion to this Doctor is useful, but something that complex should really be located on either the Tenth Doctor article or the articles for the relevant companions. Here it's a significant barrier to navigation, which is what the template is for. There are other ways to display their importance, ones which will actually aid navigation – take the following structure for instance:
Quick, to the point, and it positions all companions within an inch or two of each other, as well as making their hierarchy instantly clear. I'm aware that the codes are episode numbers, but they're not intuitive – if you've got to hover over a link to find out what it is, that's a violation of WP:EGG. Linking to episodes in the first place is also a violation of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, as well as the WP:NAVBOX rule that these templates should connect a "small, well-defined group of articles". —Flax5 14:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I'll implement this soon if no one has any further objections. —Flax5 20:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I do object. I think such a change needs consensus first. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree, and I'd be happy to discuss this further, but forming a consensus gets a bit tricky when there are no responses in a month! —Flax5 21:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
That should be a bit of a sign that nobody is warming up to the idea. Try raising this at WT:WHO. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, will do. —Flax5 12:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)