Forum:Disputed Companions: Difference between revisions

{{Forumheader|Panopticon}}

Many "disputed companions" from [[List of companions]] appear in the companion template for their relevant Doctor, but at least some (such as [[Lynda Moss]]) do not. This should probably be made consistent, but I don't want to go searching through all of them to fix it until I know which way to fix it. --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 05:14, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

:::I definitely agree with Golden Monkey here. The templates should be clean and simple. To me, companion status has nothing to do with whether they "traveled in the TARDIS" or whether they were "invited by the Doctor", but rather whether the production team (of whatever medium) actually intended them to be considered a companion. At the end of the day, "companion" means co-star. Yes, that's out-of-universe, but in this one contentious case, it's the simplest and most straightforward way to go. Just like we sometimes go to the end credits to actually discover a character's name (or at least the spelling of it), we can here allow ourselves to develop a policy which takes into account whether the production team ''actually'' meant for the person to be considered a full co-star or merely a guest star. Otherwise you get into all kinds of rabbit holes. Why Lynda Moss, but not [[Ray]]? Why [[Meera Syal]]'s character from ''[[The Hungry Earth]]''' but not [[H. G. Wells]] from ''[[Timelash]]''? Why Lethbridge-Stewart but not Bamberra? The reason that the Brig is the only one of these characters to be a companion is ''solely'' because, at the end of the day, '''Nicholas Courtney''' at one point had a season-long contract.  

:::The reason we hem and haw over companion status is '''that there is no DWU definition'''. And our endless attempts to find one are '''always''' going to be frustrated. From a DWU perspective, from the Doctor's perspective, several of the people ''we'' consider to be companions he wouldn't describe so familiarly anyway. Why do you think the Doctor's not so bothered by Dodo's disappearance in ''The War Machines'', but obviously is distraught when he thinks Steven has left in ''The Massacre''? Would he really think of Susan as his ''companion''? No, she's his ''granddaughter''. Big difference. Why does Rose balk at being called an assistant, but others don't? The reason is that companion isn't really a universal description. '''We're being out-of-universe already''' in using it. So why not just go "all in" and come up with an ''honest'' litmus test instead of continuing to have this endless, pointless debate that's been smoldering since 2005?

:::#Their actor's names were above the titles  

:::#They were formally introduced by a press release from the BBC/DWM/Virgin/Big Finish/IDW as a companion/assistant/co-star

:::Satisfying two of these three conditions should allow in everyone who's a legitimate co-star, and ''exclude'' everyone who's iffy. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 08:53, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

::Well, actually, no, my list does work quite well. Not saying it couldn't use a tweak, but it does absolutely work for both eras. That's why it's "two out of three", not "three out of three". They ''did'' have a press statement/photo-call in the classic era, every time. That's how you knew a person was a companion, because most often the credits went in the order: Doctor, featured guest stars, companions, other characters, monster actors. So you needed the press call to tell the audience, "Okay, this person's gonna be around for a bit, even though we're paying them nothing and often will bury their credit."

::And of course books, comics, etc. don't have "titles", but the various production companies issue press releases, too, telling you who the companion is in various stories. You can find DWM/BF/Virgin/BBC Books press releases identifying [[Majenta Pryce]], [[Benny]], [[Charlotte Pollard]], [[Lucie Miller]], [[Hex]], ''et al'' as "the new companion" or "The Doctor and his companion <x> ..."   And the cover often makes this plain, as well.

::Wilf was ''widely'' identified as the companion in the press prior to ''The End of Time''. He was all ''over'' the place on chat shows around Christmas, with both he and the interviewers referring to Wilf as "the companion".

::As for River Song, you're absolutely right. The press statements are unclear on whether she's a companion. Precisely. And her name didn't appear above the titles. So . . . she's not a companion. We have hints, rumor and innuendo about her. She's a cipher, a mystery. A tantalizing almost-was, could've been. But is she a companion? Not ''yet''. She can fly the TARDIS, yes: but she didn't get those lessons from the Doctor, so we can't assume just how much she's actually travelled with ''him''. Winston Churchill had several adventures with the Doctor in various incarnations — possibly out of sequence with the Doctor's own perspective on his personal timeline — too. Does that make ''him'' a companion?   Is ''anyone'' seriously arguing that? No. River is all promise, no payout. Don't be fooled. She's the ''perfect'' example of why a strictly in-universe definition of "companion" may lead you down a blind alley.  

::I'm not sure where you're getting the BBC website stuff from. I never mentioned the website at all. Not looking at that in my determinations. But if I did, I wouldn't be looking where you're looking. That's the "flashy", low-information "Guide for newcomers", or whatever it's called. The ''actual'' "official" list of classic companions is [http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/companions/ right here]. It contains everyone we'd normally consider "unambiguous" companions. The only one who some people have frequently, but erroneously, called a companion that ''does not'' appear on the list is [[Sara Kingdom]]. But that's perfectly reasonable because the BBC themselves never maintained she was an actual companion, and Jean Marsh was, as she said on the ''Battlefield'' DVD, never under that impression, either. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 11:54, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

:::I certainly think we've got to be clear cut with regards to the templates, they, like the infoboxes are ''supposed'' to present simply quick information, it's up to the articles they lead to to go into detail.  

:::As far as defining companion (and therefore placing people within that category we either need to find an in-universe "description of a companion" that we can apply to all cases (I only semi-recall an Eighth Doctor Big Finish audio where he's describing…something (yep I know not very helpful)). Or alternatively we go the out-of-universe route and use that method to define what a companion is.  

:::I don't think "travelling in the TARDIS" can be used as a reason for people to be companions; there's the policeman and the other people in ''Black Orchid'', everyone in ''Earthshock'', Gravis in ''Frontios'' none of whom can be companions.  

:::The Brig though does fulfill the "audience identification figure" on occasion, which is typically what the companion role is/was for. (Maybe not something to solely define a companion by but might be a defining point in some cases).  

:::The out of universe route is a lot easier to define and probably far less vague than an in-universe route. Press release seems good way to go, in a full story (may still lead to arguments, but less so hopefully), above the titles (does this mean in the title sequence? Or does it include names after the title sequence but over the main action?).  

::::The list of classic companions you linked to seems good, just like the list of RTD companions I linked to. And, given that both of them come from the BBC, why not just use them as our lists of companions? We'd still need to deal with non-TV media and Moff TV, of course, but why does that mean we shouldn't use what we're given for classic TV and RTD TV?