Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor Who Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article has been rated as B-Class.

High

This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Dispute Companions

I'm a bit confused as to why Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart, Sergeant Benton and Mike Yates are not considered companions with the rest of the companions.

I know it's been a longstanding dispute between the fans that they should or should not be included but surely if the actual company that makes the series, in this case the BBC, actually confirms that they are considered companions (as they do on their official site) then they should be considered as companions despite what the fans say. The Official BBC site which lists all of the Classic Series companions is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/companions/ which clearly lists the above three characters as companions.--Seryass (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is Liz there, and those three not? Liz never travelled with the doctor. 86.131.241.72 (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Astrid Peth is a companion?

How can Astrid Peth be considered a companion? She did not travel with the doctor on the TARDIS, She did not appear in more than one episode, and she does not qualify under the Grace Holloway exception because the Tenth Doctor has more than one companion.--Murphoid (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pre-publicity from the BBC stated Astird was a companion for Voyage. Stuart DD _{contributions} 09:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious. Why is she any more a companion than the old tourguide guy? Or than the Big Brother girl? Is "companion" entirely an external designation that the BBC can give to anyone? john k (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any one rule for the definition of a companion, but consensus seems to be that, at the very least, being considered a companion by the production team counts. --Brian Olsen (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the definition of Companion is, it's a bit screwy. Astrid who appeared in only 1 story IS a companion, but Jackie who appeared in multiple and travelled in the TARDIS isn't?? Is there not the chance to develop consensus on what a companion is in terms of Wikipedia? --Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 08:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is hard to define what a companion is: A character who travels with The Doctor in the TARDIS from one adventure to a seperate adventure. A noted exception is Grace Holloway who is her Doctors' only companion.--Murphoid (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

BeBoldly removing Astid Peth from the companions table. She just doesn't fit there.--Murphoid (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes she does. We have sources stating that she is a companion. let's not turn her into another Sara (who has 7 references for her being a companion).Stuart DD _{contributions} 08:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Having read the "sources" I still disagree. The source call her a "christmas companion" and a "one-off compainion." These terms clearly show that the character is not a full companion but a place holder.--162.95.80.227 (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) - well going by that, the place she was holding was the place of the companion. In any case, why does she have to appear in more than one episode before she can be a companion? That's the bizzare thing about fandom - almost no-one questions Adam's status (when his only trip saw him shoved out the TARDIS) because he was in two stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartDD (talk • contribs) 08:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?--OZ OO (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Consistancy

If a Doctor's reign starts in the first episode they appear -which is only at the VERY end of the regeneration story - then 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)

There is also a problem with Jack's listing, since he refused the only time he was formally invited to join the Doctor in his travels, his first serial can't actually be determined by the serial of invitation. Therefore his first serial should be listed either as The Empty Child or Boom Town, but for some reason it is listed as Utopia which was his 5th? serial.--Jacobpaige (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the listing under the Tenth Doctor - if you look up to the Ninth Doctor section, the series one span is there. Stuart DD _{contributions} 08:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

i've changed it to: "New series companions have also a more flexible tenure than their classical predecessors. Of the Doctor's six companions over the first four series, two (Jack and Mickey) have left the Doctor's company at some point, only to return later for further adventures. This will continue in series 4, with Martha and Donna returning to the show." - not the best wording, so please fix that if you want to. StuartDD ( t • c ) 09:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multi Doctor stories

Should we put details of companions in the multi doctor specials. Sarah Jane Smith and Susan Foreman in Five Doctors, and Jamie McCrimmon in Two Doctors? StuartDD ( t • c ) 09:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't see why not, so I added them.--OZ OO (What?) 10:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sara Kingdom references

Is there any need to have seven references on Sara? What do they actually say anyway? StuartDD ( t • c ) 20:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

With the status of Sara Kingdom much debated in fandom, the citations all refer to examples of BBC licensed media in which Sara is noted as a companion. Multiple references adds validity to this page's claim and surely citations are good for any statement made on Wikipedia? Wolf of Fenric 14:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes references are good, I was just wondering if there was a need for seven different ones. But if they are useful, then we should have them. Stuart DD _{contributions} 15:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what's with the double numbers?

The "number of serials" column has numerous entries of the form "3, (9 in total)". What do these mean? —Tamfang (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's for companions who featured under more than one doctor. The first is the total under doctor x, the second is the total between the two doctors. it is a bit confusing though. Stuart DD _{contributions} 10:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in total could be changed to with all doctors or something like that. Karl (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree changing it, so it makes sense. Stuart DD _{contributions} 13:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great image, but

I like the new image, but I think we should say who each picture is of. I my self am not sure of some of them. Stuart DD _{contributions} 19:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm desperately working on a caption for it. For some odd reason the normal way I write a caption is not working. I'm going to try another method now...Please bear with me... Wolf of Fenric (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, there's a first attempt. Should I trim it to just first names of the characters and/ore remove actor names to save space? Is the small text too small - bearing in mind enlarging it will make the box even bigger?...Your thoughts... Wolf of Fenric (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks alright, but I think we could lose the actor names, as we give those in the table of companions further down. Stuart DD _{contributions} —Preceding comment was added at 11:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to see how it looks with just first names as I think we can reduce the number of lines taken up that way. I've viewed the page in a number of sizes and the names in the box remain fixed whilst the main text shifts accordingly, so I think names are split over lines on more than just my screen. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's tidier and more compact like that. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good. Thanks Stuart DD _{contributions} 20:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astrid Peth

I'd just like to flag editors of this page to the discussion regarding merging Astrid Peth into "Voyage of the Damned". Please contribute to the discussion by going to this page. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death by Cyberman

I believe that one of the doctor's companions died whilst killing a cyberman using his gold insignia badge (the companions, not the cybermans). This doesn't seem to be listed under the deaths section. Does any one know if this is correct and who it was?

The only companion to come close to that is Adric, who died in Earthshock. He wasn't killing a cyberman when he died (although he may have done during the episode), but was killed when a spaceship he was on crashed into the Earth. He is listed in the deaths section. --OZ OO 08:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] River Song

This one's a bit confusing, I'm sure you would all agree, but it was made very clear that River Song has travelled with the Doctor within the future of his 10th incarnation. That makes her an official companion, right? This is all stated within canon material, and the Doctor believes it, and recognizes the results of his future self's actions. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 18:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we don't know nearly enough about River Song's times with the Doctor to judge whether she's a companion or not. Plus, if she is a companion, she is a companion of a yet-to-be-revealed future incarnation, and she's certainly not a companion of the Tenth Doctor! So she doesn't really have a place on this page either way... (Yet) ^† D B D 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Since she recognizes his face and notices that he looks younger, I'd say it's a definite that she's a companion of the same incarnation. And it's clearly established that she is/will be a companion. I know this is the first time this has ever happened in the series though so it's without precedent. But I don't see how there's any question about that. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 16:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

They (will) have some sort of relationship, but it has not been established she will travel with the doctor. Remember the line "Thanks for coming when I called, as always"? Companionship has to be established in current events or explicit statements. Neither is satisfied. — Edokter • Talk • 21:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but where does the requirement "Companionship has to be established in current events or explicit statements." come from? Is that your own definition or something official? (It's not in the article). The article suggests that it's not a clearly defined term, and lists one-episode-not-travelling-with companions such as Grace Holloway and Astrid Peth as "companions." Additionally it's established that the Doctor has (will have) taken her to the Singing Towers, which constitutes traveling with him. Just because the Doctor "comes when she calls" doesn't mean at one point she wasn't a "companion." He comes when Martha calls, too :) —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)