Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)

Sarah Jane note

Doesn't this note from the article contradict itself:

"Sarah Jane Smith is the only companion so far to have served at least two full seasons with two different Doctors each. Sarah joined the Third Doctor in the first story of his final season (The Time Warrior) and left in The Hand of Fear, the second story of the Fourth Doctor's third season."

If she joined in the Third Doctor's final season, she can't have been in two full seasons with him, surely? Percy Snoodle 15:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. It makes no sense. I copied that from List of Doctor Who supporting characters. It might have originally been meant to say that she served a full season with one Doctor, then a full season with another (adding up to two full seasons) — but that's not the way it reads. And since Rose did the same thing, it's not really noteworthy, is it? I've removed it from this page, and I'll remove it from the list of supporting characters too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it rather depends how you count the Christmas special. Is it the concluding story of one season, or the beginning of another? In terms of production, it's probably best thought of as the beginning of a season. But it "feels" to me as a viewer more like the conclusion of the series that precedes it. Most obviously, Doctor Who didn't start, as Sarah Jane Adventures did, with a Christmas pilot. Secondarily, though, both Christmas specials to date have happened immediately after story preceded it. Thus, they feel like conclusions rather than introductions. If you take that view, then Rose didn't, in fact, serve two full seasons, but only nearly did. CzechOut 21:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Jackie Tyler

In the Episode Army of Ghosts Jackie travels in the TARDIS from the park near her flat to the Torchwood institute 'accidently' because Rose and the doctor forget to show her the door. I know this sounds wrong, but is the fact she traveled in the TARDIS that one time grounds enough to have her as a 'companion' or is there some sort of rule saying it has to be more then once 'or' backwards or forwards in time. I don't particually want her to be acclaimed a companion but I'm not sure about this at all.--Wiggstar69 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In my mind, to be a companion you have to have either had one significant journey in the TARDIS - that is going off-world or through time... not a contemporary Londoner to another part of London, or a space-traveller being taken for a very brief jaunte through space. Or you have been the Doctor's main and more-or-less only support throughout one adventure, which is why I personally see Grace and Donna as companions and not Jackie, Lynda or that woman in The Satan Pit. --GracieLizzie 11:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for filling me in, now I'm sure, but I was worried for a second.--Wiggstar69 13:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's my view. Different people have different opinions and the companion one can be a contentious one in certain-fan circles. As the article mentions, some people don't include Liz Shaw or the Brig others are far more inclusive.--GracieLizzie 13:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I for one certainly think Jackie has done more than other people who are undisputed companions, and am shocked that the WikiProject is showing such uniform resistance to the idea of calling a spade a spade. CzechOut 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

perhaps there should just be some sort of comment on the end

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.248.106.35 (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

My now deleted List of TARDIS travellers in Doctor Who listed a whole bunch of people who travelled just the once in the TARDIS in a similar fashion to Jackie Tyler. For example, see the end of Time and the Rani - if travelling in the TARDIS once alone automatically qualifies you as a companion, then the Seventh Doctor had a lot of companions including Louis Pasteur and Albert Einstein... Wolf of Fenric 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sara Kingdom

Wouldn't it be appropriate to note Sara Kingdom only as a disputed companion? She was considered by the producers as a possible companion briefly before casting, but ultimately Marsh was only contracted for the one story. It wasn't, i gather, a situation like, say, Tegan or Nyssa, where they had this extension clause that kept getting activated. Marsh was never in it for anything other than the one, admittedly long, recording block. Plus, the BBC's official website doesn't name her as a companion. On that basis alone she's surely contestable, isn't she? CzechOut 07:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is already in the article, under the "Disputed companions" section. --Brian Olsen 15:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is inconsistent in how it deals with those companions mentioned in sections 3 and 5. If we're going to include Sara in sections 3 and 5.1, why is Chang Lee only in section 3? Why isn't Jackie in section 5.9 and 5.10? Disputed companions aren't handled consistently across the WikiProject. Maybe it would be a good idea to include all disputed companions in brackets or italics when put into lists across the Project? That way the Project is being neutral, yet helpfully noting controversy, in its handling of these "special case" companions. CzechOut 13:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fan opinion

I'm noticing a lot of reference to fan opinion. Unless it can be sourced from a reliable source, giving information about fan opinion is original research.--Crossmr 17:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Along the same lines, is it not worth citing licensed publications about various characters' status as companions? A number of books from the 1980s and early 1990s listed companions, and in some cases gave reasons for according or withholding that status. Granted, it doesn't resolve questions about Grace, Mickey, Jackie and Adam, but it seems fairly relevant to discussions of Katarina and Benton and so on.--Karen | Talk | contribs 05:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Donna as disputed companion

Unless anyone disagrees I am going to delete the sentance in the disputed companion section concerning Donna Noble as she has just been confirmed as the new full time companion.SkorponokX 13:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent removals

For some reason, this article had been changed into a list of TARDIS travellers, including material which listed every meeting between a companion and a Doctor who weren't originally together on the series (eg. Jamie and the 6th Doctor in The Two Doctors). This has been reverted: the former material is woefully obscure trivia, and way off topic for the premise; the latter is taken care of in relevant companion/episode articles. We should not view an article as a dumping ground for practically anything even tangentially related, particularly when it can be handled better elsewhere. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 10:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Appearances

This is an encyclopedia which purports to list facts. Accuracy is nothing bad. I think listing appearances by Season/Series is highly misleading - e.g. Ben and Polly appear throughout Season 4 - Jamie does not although he is in some of Season 4; Katarina appeared in just two stories of Season 3 but certainly not the whole thing; and, as it currently appears to the casual reader, the Ninth Doctor was accompanied by Rose Tyler, Adam Mitchell and Captain Jack Harkness from "Rose" to "The Parting of the Ways" in Series 1, with Adam and Jack leaving in the latter for Jack to return in "Smith and Jones" in Series 3...which is obviously wrong... Please could editors discuss this point here such that a consensus may be reached? Wolf of Fenric 16:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Do these companions lack information on their first and final appearances in their articles? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 16:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but is a casual reader expected to click on each an every companion in order to find this information? My point is the information displayed here on this page is misleading. Wolf of Fenric 17:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right.I think we should replace the series bit with from... to... What does anyone else think?--OZOO (What?) 17:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it leads to unnecessary clutter, I'm for leaving it vague. However, if it can be formatted in a manner that doesn't make it look a mess, and there's consensus in favour... --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 17:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this for formatting: If the were only in for a few episodes, we could say something like, for Adam, (2 episodes in Series 1). If they were in for the whole series, just say the series. This gives people an appropriate sense of the scale of their involvement, and doesn't seem too cluttered. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To avoid clutter and make it tidier, how about a few small tables? E.g.

===with the First Doctor===

Companion	Actor	First serial	Last serial
Susan Foreman	Carole Ann Ford	An Unearthly Child	The Dalek Invasion of Earth
...	...	...	...
Polly	Anneke Wills	The War Machines	The Tenth Planet

===with the Second Doctor===

Companion	Actor	First serial	Last serial
Ben Jackson	Michael Craze	The Tenth Planet	The Faceless Ones

etc., etc. Wolf of Fenric 19:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks like a good format. I'd go with that idea StuartDD ( t • c ) 19:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with that one is that it doesn't immediately give the reader an idea of the scope of their involvement if they aren't aware of the episode order. I still think it would be better to just note the number of episodes/serials they were in, and let the reader go to the companion's article for specifics. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added Season and Series columns to rectify this. Wolf of Fenric 21:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And a Number of serials column on reflection. Wolf of Fenric 00:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And I've removed {{Doctorwhocompanions}}. That much was overkill. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Martha and Donna

I changed the episode count to the number of appearances to date. Although it has been confirmed they will appear in more, stating that they have appeared in more than the current number of episodes is technically wrong. StuartDD ( t • c ) 12:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I quite agree with that. If they haven't appeared yet, they don't have that number of appearances. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 13:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Consistancy

If a Doctor's reign starts in the first episode they appear -which is only at the VERY end of the regeneration story - the the companions reign should ALSO start at their first appearance, even if they don't travel in that story. Martha doesn't travel in Smith and Jones till the end, but she still counts as a companion for that story. StuartDD ( t • c ) 12:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled - Martha is listed as starting in "Smith and Jones". What is the problem? Wolf of Fenric 14:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Stuart may be referring to the distinctions made for other companions (eg. Nyssa, Jack etc). --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 15:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean, some companions have a "fist serial" listing, and a "first seen in" note on the number of serials. If we are counting the start of a doctor as the first story he appears in (when it is at the end of an episode - and should NOT be counted), then the companions should also start from when they first appear, even if they don't actually travel in the Tardis during that story till the very end.

So for example The Android Invasion should be the "first serial" for Turlough. StuartDD ( t • c ) 17:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have done the count based on when there is a mutual understanding between the Doctor and the respective companion that they are to join the Doctor on his travels. In the cases of Steven and Adric, they stow away and gain acceptance in their next serial. Zoe stows away, but gets accepted in her same story. Similarly, Rose and Martha share adventures with the Ninth and Tenth Doctors, respectively, in their first episodes before becoming companions, but the Doctor collects them and whisks them off before the close of these first episodes. Also, since when has the Fourth Doctor serial The Android Invasion been the first serial for Turlough, an exclusively Fifth Doctor companion? Wolf of Fenric 20:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Nyssa - appears, helps out as a guest character in The Keeper of Traken, then was written in as a companion in Logopolis. Jack - appears and helps in "The Empty Child" and "The Doctor Dances", but only becomes a companion in the latter episode and only because the Doctor is obliged to rescue him from his ship. Wolf of Fenric 20:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The words "origonal research" come to mind. - But I'll accept that I am wrong.

"since when has the Fourth Doctor serial The Android Invasion been the first serial for Turlough, an exclusively Fifth Doctor companion? "

- sorry, must have read the wrong line, it's Harry Sullivan.

StuartDD ( t • c ) 21:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also missunderstanding the table - because that serial was a long time after he left. StuartDD ( t • c ) 21:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

First serials column

How about changing the "first serial" column for the (small) number of companions who joined in a different episode to the one they were introduced.
Currently the format has "serial A" under first serial, and "first seen in Serial B" under number of serials. Instead, we could put both in the first serial column like this
introduced: Serial B
joined: Serial A
so for Adric it would be Introduced: Full Circle, joined: State of Decay StuartDD ( t • c ) 11:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Companions details

The current article states that:
New series companions have also a more flexible tenure than their classical predecessors. Of the Doctor's six companions over the first four series, four (Jack, Mickey, Donna, and Martha) have at some point left the Doctor's company, only to return several episodes or even seasons later, for one or more further adventures.
This is technically incorrect, as Donna and Martha haven't rejoined yet. Also, Astrid hasn't become a companion yet so the Doctor has not yet had six companions. It should be changed to something that makes this clear. StuartDD ( t • c ) 09:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on the first part, but the number is correct - Rose, Adam, Jack, Mickey, Donna, Martha. --Brian Olsen 01:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

so it is. I'd change the line myself, but I couldn't come up with good wording. StuartDD ( t • c ) 10:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)