765,429
edits
No edit summary |
m (Robot: Unlinking "List of companions") |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
I could not edit this myself, presumably because I lack mod privileges (or don't have an account here). --[[Special:Contributions/74.94.186.19|74.94.186.19]]<sup>[[User talk:74.94.186.19#top|talk to me]]</sup> 23:21, May 8, 2012 (UTC) | I could not edit this myself, presumably because I lack mod privileges (or don't have an account here). --[[Special:Contributions/74.94.186.19|74.94.186.19]]<sup>[[User talk:74.94.186.19#top|talk to me]]</sup> 23:21, May 8, 2012 (UTC) | ||
:I'm not certain, but I'd guess that those characters are listed in that template so that | :I'm not certain, but I'd guess that those characters are listed in that template so that List of companions can be both comprehensive and logical. The problem, as noted at [[Companion#What does the word "companion" actually mean?]], is that there's no real definition of the word within ''Doctor Who'' itself, and no complete consensus in the real world either. On what grounds can we include the Brigadier and exclude Travers? Or include Jackson Lake and exclude Marco Polo? We can try to come up with rules — indeed, people on this wiki have [[Forum:Disputed Companions|tried]] [[Forum:Who counts as a companion?|before]] — but ultimately it's an arbitrary and insoluble problem. So the template lists people who shared multiple adventures with the Doctor ("multi-story") and people who accompanied him in a single adventure but acted like a companion ("single adventure"). It's not a perfect solution, but I don't think there's a better one, really. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 03:39, May 9, 2012 (UTC) | ||
::''On what grounds can we include the Brigadier and exclude Travers?'' | ::''On what grounds can we include the Brigadier and exclude Travers?'' | ||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
::::I've edited {{tlx|companions of the First Doctor}} to have only the two ''DMP'' people in it, largely on the basis that so many people seem to consider Sara Kingdom a companion, there's little logic in denying her brother the same status. Kingdom doesn't have a claim that Vyon doesn't also have, unless you're just going to say Kingdom has more episodes. And [[Edward Travers]] is gone from the Second Doctor template. It's arbitrary, but as [[user:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] pointed out, that's what we got. | ::::I've edited {{tlx|companions of the First Doctor}} to have only the two ''DMP'' people in it, largely on the basis that so many people seem to consider Sara Kingdom a companion, there's little logic in denying her brother the same status. Kingdom doesn't have a claim that Vyon doesn't also have, unless you're just going to say Kingdom has more episodes. And [[Edward Travers]] is gone from the Second Doctor template. It's arbitrary, but as [[user:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] pointed out, that's what we got. | ||
::::Navigation templates shouldn't really pose a lot of debate and questions, although the companion debate is always going to be with ''Doctor Who'' fans. To the extent possible, the people included should be non-controversial, or at the very least, part of ''commonly held controversy''. There aren't a lot of people out there arguing for Edward Travers as companion. There ''are'' a lot of people arguing for Sara Kingdom and the Brig. It has at least been a question on the table whether [[Chang Lee]] is a companion. Nobody has ever seriously wondered whether [[Altos]] is a companion. I think the point with the nav templates is just to allow ''enough'' people in so we don't get a constant barrage of "why isn't [my favourite character] on the list?" It's not meant to reflect | ::::Navigation templates shouldn't really pose a lot of debate and questions, although the companion debate is always going to be with ''Doctor Who'' fans. To the extent possible, the people included should be non-controversial, or at the very least, part of ''commonly held controversy''. There aren't a lot of people out there arguing for Edward Travers as companion. There ''are'' a lot of people arguing for Sara Kingdom and the Brig. It has at least been a question on the table whether [[Chang Lee]] is a companion. Nobody has ever seriously wondered whether [[Altos]] is a companion. I think the point with the nav templates is just to allow ''enough'' people in so we don't get a constant barrage of "why isn't [my favourite character] on the list?" It's not meant to reflect list of companions (an ill-maintained page), nor is it intended as an exhaustive list of everyone who might possibly qualify as "[[Adelaide Brooke]] companions". It ''should'' be a list that people don't agree with on every count, but they can at least say, "Yeah, I've heard that argument before." | ||
::::Of course, I'm talkin' mainly about the televised, book and audio companions. The comic and short story stuff is a little more obscure, but then those formats are in themselves more obscure. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | ::::Of course, I'm talkin' mainly about the televised, book and audio companions. The comic and short story stuff is a little more obscure, but then those formats are in themselves more obscure. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}16:52: Thu 10 May 2012 </span> | ||
:::::Ah! And here I was assuming that it was based on some discussion which I just hadn't been able to locate! Fair enough. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 02:59, May 11, 2012 (UTC) | :::::Ah! And here I was assuming that it was based on some discussion which I just hadn't been able to locate! Fair enough. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 02:59, May 11, 2012 (UTC) |