|
|
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | | {{ArchCat}} |
| | |
| | |
| <table border=2 align=right>
| |
| <th colspan=2>Susan Foreman</th>
| |
| <tr>
| |
| <td>First Story:</td>
| |
| <td>[[An Unearthly Child]]
| |
| </td>
| |
| </tr>
| |
| | |
| <tr>
| |
| <td>Last Story:</td>
| |
| <td>[[The Dalek Invasion of Earth]]
| |
| </td>
| |
| </tr>
| |
| | |
| <tr>
| |
| <td>Other Stories:</td>
| |
| <td>[[The Five Doctors]]
| |
| </td>
| |
| </tr>
| |
| | |
| <tr>
| |
| <td>Actress:</td>
| |
| <td>[[Carole Ann Ford]]
| |
| </td>
| |
| </tr>
| |
| </table>
| |
| Before getting started on details of the companions, I thought it would be worth getting some ideas from my fellow contributors on how we build this section. My personal preference is to have a table stating first story, last story, and actor/actress name. Something like this.
| |
| | |
| With a description of the character - how they meet the Doctor etc.
| |
| | |
| Any thoughts? --[[User:Kazzab72|Kazzab72]] 07:51, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)
| |
| | |
| :This touches back on the [[Tardis talk:Canon policy | Canon Policy]] discussion. If we adopt an all-inclusive or almost-all-inclusive canon policy, should we list other stories besides the television ones in which companions appear? Should the table also include the titles of New/Missing Adventure novels, [[Decalog]] short stories, and so on, that the companion appears in? In an article on Susan, for example, should the table also list "[[Dimensions in Time]]" under "Other Stories," since she appears in that adventure as well? Also, do we mention that [[Roberta Tovey]] played Susan in the [[Peter Cushing]] movies, or do we treat that Susan as a completely separate entry, particularly since, - as far as we know, - she never used the last name "Foreman?" (Heck, we're not even sure if that version of Susan had the last name "Who.")--[[User:Freethinker1of1|Freethinker1of1]] 09:27, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)
| |
| | |
| Ah, and that also means I've probably missed off other companions from the New/Missing adventures.
| |
| | |
| Personally I'd suggest that we list non-television stories which the companions appear in, as we are listing those stories. However, the issue with regards to the Peter Cushing films gets more complicated. Are Ian and Barabara in [[Dr. Who and the Daleks]] the same Ian and Barbara as in the series? If I remember rightly Barbara is refered to as one of Dr Who's grand-daughters. --[[User:Kazzab72|Kazzab72]] 09:43, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)
| |
| | |
| | |
| My vote goes for including the novels and the audios in this list as well so for example in other stories for Susan I would include Legacy of the Daleks. However I think Susan, Ian and Barbara from the movies should be treated as different characters, since they were the same in name only. On a side point was an continuity explanation for the movies in Head Games, I read it years and years ago and have a vague recollection that it tried to use the Land of Fiction to incorporate them into the more established canon.
| |
| | |
| I would also change the list of companions to include Bernice, Chris, Roz, Sam, etc --[[User:Amxitsa|Amxitsa]] 12:42, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)
| |
| | |
| I do think that we should include the non-television stories but as a seperate section of the table (i.e. "first story", "last story", "other stories", "non-tv stories", and "actor/actress" would be under each companion name). As for the actor/actress section, I think we should include only the actor/actress who held the role during their tenure on the television program (so the only companion with two actors/actresses credited would be K9 and Romana). If we desperately want to include other actors (i.e. Dr. Who and the Daleks actors), we can, but I think it would be more organized this way. --Spiffy Sontaran 6:35, 16 May 2009 (EST) (by the way, I know how late I am to this discussion.)
| |
| | |
| ==Organization==
| |
| Should we organize the companions, first into TV, Comic etc. and then by which Doctor they were with?--[[User:GingerM|GingerM]] 20:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
| |
| :Also what if people appear in more than one context e.g. comic, tv etc. Should they be in '''a)''' the first thing they were published / televised in,
| |
| '''b)''' the first thing they appeared in in their own timeline chronologically, '''c)'''the thing they appeared most in?, or '''D)''' they thing they are best known / most recognized as being in?--[[User:GingerM|GingerM]] 16:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Do you mean divide the page into two categories, one listing the companions by media type, and the second listing them by Doctor? The present format seems to work fine, and listing companions by Doctor can be problematic, as some, like Ben and Polly or Sarah Jane Smith, and especially the Brigadier, were associated with more than one Doctor.
| |
| --[[User:Freethinker1of1|Freethinker1of1]] 18:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| *If you look at the way wikipedia have organised their companions, i think it looks better.--[[User:GingerM|GingerM]] 14:45, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ==First/ last appearances==
| |
| I have added the first and last appearances of the comapnions in the television series, using only there appearances in the television series.
| |
| I checked most of the links, but some may lead to disambig pages so please check.
| |
| [[User:Jack's the man|Jack's the man]] 15:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ==Companion Table==
| |
| I was thinking about changing the current list to a table form - I've put an example of this [[User talk:Jack's the man/classic series|here]]. [[User:Jack's the man|Jack's]] [[User talk:Jack's the man|the]] [[Special:Contributions/Jack's the man|man]] - 10:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Rosita & Jackson Lake ==
| |
| | |
| Moved to "Disputed Companions", since a lot of fans will dispute the companion status of two one-off characters. I also added River Song, as some consider her one and many not. --[[User:Golden Monkey|Golden Monkey]] 21:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :I have just edited it back due to edits making it a tad bit disorganized. --[[User:Golden Monkey|Golden Monkey]] 18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ==Astrid?==
| |
| | |
| Can i ask why Astrid is under Disputed Companions, whilst Christina, Adelaide and Wilfred are under Tenth Doctor Companions? If this is the case shouldn't Astrid be in there too?--[[User:Tomblacky|Tomblacky]] 15:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
| * I think it has to do with the fact that the BBC is explicitly describing those three as companions for the final specials, whereas Astrid was listed as a guest star. The same would hold true if Donna had not come back. I think the list is a bit overdone - the two K-9s shouldn't be listed under Tenth Doctor because they acted as companions to Sarah Jane and if you include K9 IV based on Journey's End then we need to include Gwen Cooper, Ianto, etc., so I removed those. I do think it's OK to leave Christina, Adelaide and Wilfred where they are for now because we don't know how the final 3 specials will play out. For all we know those three could be slated to return for the finale, and the jury is out as to whether Christina might return when Matt Smith takes over (or Adelaide, for that matter). Once the finale airs, we should have a better handle on whether we should list them as full companions or "disputed" ones. I don't think Rosita should be listed here. The episode clearly describes her as Jackson's companion, not the Doctor's. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 01:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ==let me do my edits please==
| |
| I can't find that template that says please not to edit while I edit. I would like to do some work without getting edited. I got reverted a few times before I had completed my work. I will post again here when I have finished. --[[User:Stardizzy2|Stardizzy2]] 22:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ==okay, done now==
| |
| thankee. --[[User:Stardizzy2|Stardizzy2]] 23:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ==Mary Shelley==
| |
| before I edited it, the article had a note on her possible companion status which the ''[[The Company of Friends]]'' audio might confirm/deny. as I have not heard it and know nothing about it, I did not comment either way. (when the editor may the comment they had discussed the audio as something which would get released. by now, I think, it has.) --[[User:Stardizzy2|Stardizzy2]] 23:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Lynda ==
| |
| | |
| Seriously, does ''anyone'' consider Lynda a companion? I thought the point of her character was that she was to be set up to ''appear'' to be Rose's replacement until she died before becoming one. She shouldn't even be under "disputed". --[[User:Golden Monkey|Golden Monkey]] 14:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :No. No she isn't a companion. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::agreed. some editors have loose definitions of companion, though. --[[User:Stardizzy2|Stardizzy2]] 18:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Rory ==
| |
| Who's Rory?!
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| Rory Willams is the guy that Amy is/was going to marry.
| |
| :If you're curious as to why he's listed, he is known to go in the TARDIS back to Venice in the next story and will likely be in the next couple after that. --[[User:Golden Monkey|Golden Monkey]] 03:28, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :
| |
| :I think this was a joke reference to last nights episode where he is erased from existence.
| |
| | |
| ==Non-canonical companions==
| |
| According to at least my read of [[Tardis:Canon policy]] and [[Tardis:Resources]], non-canonical companions should not be on this list, because this is an in-universe article. They should be split off into [[List of non-canonical companions]]. '''[[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>]] 07:50, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :That sounds like a good solution. Although, as I mentioned elsewhere, if the list only consists of companions of non-canonical Doctors, not companions from non-canonical appearances by canonical Doctors, I don't think that's a good name for the article. --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 07:57, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Jack Harkness ==
| |
| | |
| He should be a companion under the ninth Doctor. He travelled with him in the TARDIS twice. I dunno if you count him for the tenth but definitely the 9th. And should Adam also be listed as a companion as he completed a TARDIS trip?
| |
| | |
| Nevermind I was reading th wrong section.
| |
| | |
| == Lady Christina ==
| |
| | |
| Why is she listed as a companion when the Doctor refused her? She shouldn't even be disputed... --[[Special:Contributions/152.131.9.132|152.131.9.132]] 20:44, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Disputed Companions ==
| |
| How on earth are the Torchwood and Sarah Jane Adventures team disputed as companions!! They all hardly met the Doctor!!! I also think Mickey Smith should be removed from the Ninth Doctor's companions, and just kept in the disputed section. --[[User:Slowpoketail|Slowpoketail]] 18:47, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Eleventh Doctor Disputed Companions ==
| |
| | |
| Really? How can one off characters be considered companions, even disputed? This is understandable for characters such as Astrid and Adelaide, who (though I personally don't consider them companions) did fill a companion role in episodes where a regular companion is absent. But saying that Nasreen and Craig could be "companions" is ridiculous! We can't say that every one of the Doctor's many aquaintances is a companion. Otherwise we'd be left with a massive list. [[User:TemporalSpleen|TemporalSpleen]] 21:27, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| * Answering this belatedly:the problem is the definition some fans and other authorities have taken is that a person becomes a companion if they've not only shared an adventure with the Doctor, but done so in the TARDIS. However, that doesn't account for Craig. Blame the BBC for declaring one-off characters like Lady Christina official companions. If The Lodger had been a Christmas special, Craig would have been considered one officially. I do think some level of common sense has to prevail, though. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 21:17, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == The TARDIS ==
| |
| The Doctor's Wife firmly established that the TARDIS isn't a ship, but a full out companion with all rights and privileges thereto. So this reason I added her (and the episode confirmed that it is a her, regardless whose body she borrowed) to the "Special Cases" section in an "Other" category, which I think is fair enough, so that we don't have to pigeonhole her into a specific Doctor. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 21:17, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| ==Proposed deletion==
| |
| Deletion has been proposed and rationale given on the front page.
| |
| ===For===
| |
| *[[User:Mini-mitch]]. Put {{tl|delete}} and rationale on page.
| |
| *{{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">'''21:15:46 Sun '''26 Jun 2011 </span> I'm all for deletion, despite the fact that I've put some work into this page. It's a waste of our time constantly warring over this page. Delete it and move on. Navboxes like {{tl|companions of the First Doctor}} have essentially superseded the utility of this list. Navboxes work better for controversial subjects that aren't well defined in a canonical story.
| |
| ===Against===
| |
| ===Discussion===
| |
