Talk:Donna Noble

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor Who WikiProject
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] We know when Donna's leaving

It's Journey's End. Tate has said she's not doing any of the 2009 episodes, hence she is leaving at Journey's End. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.229.160 (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sinister

Removed the word sinister from "even if it means battling Miss Foster and her army of sinister Adipose." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.88.191.99 (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You do know that this is what edit summaries are for, correct?


DarkestMoonlight (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recreation

I think that Donna deserves her own page for the simple reason of past precedent - there's a page for the other one-story companions (Grace Holloway and Sara Kingdom). I only discovered the earlier info after I'd created the page, so if you disagree, please discuss. --El Zoof 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Oddly"

Regarding the end sentence that "oddly", the Doctor doesn't mention Donna to Martha - he only mentions Rose. This doesn't seem that odd to me, since he only travelled with Donna in the sense that they moved around a lot - not in the sense that they recreationally travelled the universe. He offered her a place on board, and she refused. It'd seem odder if he HAD mentioned her, being a bit like mentioning an ex-girlfriend to a new girlfriend and adding "oh, and there was this one girl I asked out, but she said no". Steffan Alun 11:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Given the shocking news...

No, really, I'm amazed this character is returning. Considering she is about to be a much more important part of the series, it would be nice if we could get the article in better shape between now and 2008. It seems a little, well, weak right now. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 01:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of "Personality"

I've removed the personality section, as all it was doing was providing an episode synopsis. It did not give any great insight into her character; anything that did (based on what I've seen in similar articles) would most likely be based on the author's opinion rather than the events of the episode. --El Zoof 01:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Personality sections are standard for articles about fictional characters. This one certainly needs work, but should not be removed entirely. Should be possible to report factual info on character traits without it being a synopsis. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 03:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slightly odd note removed

I've removed this slightly odd note, since it's not terribly understandable, and borders on OR.--Rambutan (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I admit my wording was poor, but it definitely does not border on Original Research as the dates of birth of all Doctor and companion actors are widely available from a number of sources, including the relevant Wikipedia pages and the Internet Movie Database. Wolf of Fenric 18:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) I think it's pointing out that Tate is older than Tennant, and that this is unusual in a Doctor/companion pairing. Which, I suppose, is true, but I'm not sure it's particularly notable. Mark H Wilkinson 18:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The OR issue is that it's not been remarked on by a source, so one supporting the theory (either one specifically saying she's older, or one with their birthdates) needs to be added.-Rambutan (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, doubtless, Peter Ware will save it for a day when he's really desperate to fill space in a Trivia Fact File. He might even get it from this page -- something that worries me is that we'll one day back up the notability of a note by citing an article which got it from Wikipedia in the first place. Mark H Wilkinson 19:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age

The section about Tate's and Tennant's relative ages was recently removed by Ckatz; this is a section that has been discussed several times - the main point being that it isn't original research since it is incontrovertably true. Tate is older than Tennant, this is a first to the extent described; what's other peoples' opinions on this?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 10:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm against it because it smacks of ageism and sexism. Let's try to keep the bias out. DonQuixote (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Sexism?! IT makes no reference to gender... Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If it weren't Tate and Tennant but rather, say, Nicholas Courtney and Tom Baker, people probably wouldn't find it as "notable". I'm just saying, be careful where you tread with this one. DonQuixote (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I cut it once myself, although I've no desire to argue about it. Reason: it may be the first instance, but not the only one (Barrowman, Minogue). The more that is acknowledged, the farther afield we get from the subject at hand, which is Donna (who is centuries younger than the Doctor!), and the less notable the first instance becomes. Also, trying to explain all this in the article seems to lead inevitably to some rather awkward prose. But if the consensus turns out to be otherwise, it's no big deal to me. :) -- Karen | Talk | contribs 06:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
In reply to DonQuixote's comment above, you picked a bad example as the Brig may or may not have been ever considered a companion and if he was, he was never a companion to the Fourth Doctor, but to the older Third Doctor. Otherwise, find me a male actor who played a companion who was older than the leading man at the time of his companionship (for lack of a better term) and let's cite it. IMO it is not sexism in any way to cite Donna as the first older-than-Doctor companion because if, lets say we find out that Frazer Hines was remarkably well preserved in 1966 and was in fact older than Pat Troughton, then I'd lead the charge to make the correction. (BTW it's been pointed out that Barrowman is older than Tennant; this is true, but during his initial companion tenure he was younger than Eccleston, so he doesn't count. And Donna predated his return, anyway, assuming that we're going to follow precedent (Sara Kingdom, Grace Holloway) and assign Donna companion status for Runaway Bride, not just season 4. 23skidoo (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed it because it is uncited, it is OR (as we've had to do the math), and (most importantly) it is trivial. Who cares which actor is older - and given the above example of Eccleston vs. Tennant with regards to Barrowman, it becomes even less relevant. (And I'm not even taking into account the "assign Donna" bit - isn't that the BBC's job?) --Ckatzchatspy 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Granted the Brig may not be considered a companion to some, but to use the weaselly "at the time of his companionship" is just a way of twisting the words in order to justify something objectionable--especially considering that Tegan appeared in only one serial of the Fourth Doctor's as well yet she's considered a companion of both him and the Fifth. Look, the point is that Tate isn't a woman in her twenties and this is why some might find this bit of trivia notable whilst others might find such trivia quite offensive. I'm just pointing this out and saying that we should be careful to avoid the latter because, really, this is just a bit of trivia that's about as trivial as listing her measurements. DonQuixote (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent)The age thing has re-emerged, having just been added to articles for Barrowman, Tate, Minogue, Gerald Flood, and their related characters, as well as the "Companions" article. I've since removed the text, as it is still trivia (and also essentially cut-and-paste text.) --Ckatzchatspy 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, remove it on grounds of trivia - that I can handle. But to be accused of being ageist? I'm sorry, someone needs to check their definitions...To simply note one person is older than another is not showing prejudice. And the sexism thing is just ridiculous. I find that a personally offensive attack to be accused of being prejudiced especially when absolutely no prejudice was shown. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to reiterate, some people find may this bit of trivia interesting whilst others might find it quite offensive for the very reason that it's analogous to listing a woman's measurements. I'm just cautioning you lest you meet someone who is rather passionate about this. DonQuixote (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
So are you now going to every page detailing a living person on Wikipedia and giving the same warning? Should all date of births be removed from Wikipedia? No. This is not ageism and I think your concern is somewhat deluded. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not ageism in the sense that it's about a person's age. It's ageism as it pertains to sexism. If it weren't for the fact that she was a woman, this bit of trivia probably wouldn't seem so notable. Please try to understand how someone might feel when they come across this bit of trivia being quoted as being notable. DonQuixote (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I would have added this information irrespective of the genders involved as I did on Gerald Flood's page, etc. If it's not ageism, it's not ageism. And it's not sexism as I wrote the same for the male actors as I did for the female actors. I think it's quite patronising to assume that a woman reading that Catherine Tate is older than David Tennant might offend or outrage them in some way. I do not understand your grounds for claiming this is a sexist remark. It's sexist just to highlight the female actors, (Catherine Tate and Kylie Minogue), involved and not to leap to the unneccessary defence of Gerald Flood and John Barrowman. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Quickly checking the edit history, I see that you've added the notes to Gerald Flood and John Barrowman on the 17th and 18th--after I pointed out how sexist it was to single out Catherine Tate. Oh wait, found one that predates that--Kamelion was edited in July. Wasn't that about the time Tate was announced? Up till now I just assumed it was an honest mistake, a simple faux paus, but you're starting to cast doubts on that.
Look, the point is that it was a small error. Everyone makes mistakes, so don't take it too personally. I wasn't casting judgment on you--hell, I was only criticising the statement in-and-of-iteself. I'm just saying that some people will find this little tiny thing offensive because Tate was noted first (and then all the males were retroactively included), so be careful. DonQuixote (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I have said all I am going to say on this matter on DonQuixote's talk page and will make no further comments on this matter, especially not on this page as I see no point in furthering a circular argument, especially on this page which should be left for discussion of the content of the Donna Noble article. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding spin-off media

To get things straight, she isn't in the IDW comics nor the Decide Your Destiny books (as yet) and the first wave of 2008 books including the Quick Reads novella still feature Martha. BUT, the September wave are confirmed to feature Donna and Pest Control, the audio book, also features her. This needs to be communicated in the article with perhaps a reference to say that Martha's departure wasn't revealed to the writers soon enough for them to change the stories (which I believe was the case) Clockwork Apricot (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)