Forum:UNIT aren't really companions

Index → Panopticon → UNIT aren't really companions

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

I was just looking through the Third Doctor companions template and I realised that Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart, Liz Shaw, John Benton and Mike Yates were on the list under television companions. Is this really correct? I understand how they were the equivalent of companions during the exile to Earth, but they aren't really companions. The Doctor's companions are those that travel with him in the TARDIS, something they never did onscreen. I know it is really a matter of debate, but from my point of view at least, Vincent van Gogh is more of a companion than Lethbridge-Stewart. These characters are recurring characters. Not all recurring characters are companions and not all companions are recurring characters, but I think we should keep the two seperate. I propose we remove Lethbridge-Stewart and Benton from the template and move Liz and Mike to prose companions, because they did TARDIs-travel in the PDAs and MAs respectively. Bigredrabbit 04:22, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

Travelling in the TARDIS has nothing to do with being a companion. Really, if someone is part of the main cast for more than an episode than they are a companion. Characters like Van Gogh and Duggan are certainly not companions. Besides, the Brigadier did travel in the TARDIS in Mawdryn UndeadIcecreamdif 19:55, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

The Brigadier did travel in the TARDIS, with the Fifth Doctor, not the Third. The point I'm trying to make is "companion" isn't a Doctor Who term for "recurring character". "Companions" are those who travel with the Doctor in his TARDIS, be they recurring or one-off characters. I myself don't really see van Gogh and Duggan as companions because its one small journey, much like the Brigadier's in Mawdryn Undead. By all means, create a recurring characters section or something, but slamming them all in as companions is hardly correct. Bigredrabbit 00:31, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

Well, in-universe, it is hardly likely that there is an exact definition of companion. The Doctor will often call his friends companions, but there is no reason that he would distinguish between friends who don't travel in the TARDIS, friends who do travel in it, people who only go on one trip, etc. The only possible way to define a companion is to give it an out of universe definition. In my opinion, the best definition for a companion would be a character who is part of the main cast for more than one consecutive episode, excluding two parters. That definition would exclude characters like Astrid and Adelaide Brooke, but would include characters like the Brigadier and Liz Shaw. The Brigadier also travelled in the TARDIS in The Three Doctors, although the TARDIS wasn't travelling under its own power.Icecreamdif 03:04, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. Throughout multiple sources, in-universe and real-world alike, it is stated that the Doctor's companions are those that travel through time and space with him in his TARDIS. If everyone who reappears is a companion, then the Master, Lytton and Captain Avery are companions, which is hardly correct. I'd really like for an admin or at least a third party to step in so that one or possibly none of us can get an upper hand and add some more zest (zest?) to this debate. I, much like you, don't think that Astrid and Adelaid and Christina are companions, they're just one-off allies. Expanding the term to those who make reappearances in multi-episode stories is a bad idea because, by these means, Richard Mace, Tallulah and Astra are companions, just to name three. And the Brigadier's travel in The Three Doctors is no more of an adventure of those of van Gogh and Duggan. Bigredrabbit 10:16, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't count Lyttton or Avery, because the definition I suggested said that they have to be in consecutive episodes, and obviously characters in multi-part stories don't count, or almost every character in the classic series would be a companion. To exclude the Master, I will ammend my definition to say that they also have to be an ally of the Doctor's. The Brigadier, Sergeant Benton, and Captain Yates were in most episodes for the Third Doctor's entire tenure, so why shouldn't they be considered companions? Although those characters are disputable as companions, Liz is almost universally considered as a companion, even though she never even entered the TARDIS. And, should we say that Jo wasn't a companion until Colony in Space, even though she had done everything else that a companion does in her episodes before that. There is really no reason to say that travelling in the TARDIS is necessary to be a companion.Icecreamdif 14:25, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're suggesting now and I totally get why Liz, Lethbridge-Stewart, Benton and Mike would be considered companions. Whilst I don't know if I still agree with this, I would disagree that many of the Tenth Doctor's so-called companions (i.e. Astrid Peth, Tish Jones, Francine Jones, Clive Jones, Leo Jones, Sylvia Noble, Wilfred Mott, Jackson Lake, Rosita Farisi, Christina de Souza and Adelaide Brooke (especially those last four)). Although the UNIT people could well be considered companions, I still stick by my claim that the aforementioned Tenth Doctor companions are not. I think that this wiki should establish a definition of companion so that things like this can be prevented in future. Bigredrabbit 07:42, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. That would stop the argument.Boblipton 11:17, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

It's not for the wiki to decided upon the definition. You need an in-universe source for complete clarity as even the opinion someone like JNT isn't gospel. Not sure why you're saying a trip in the TARDIS is on the companion check-list. Liz Shaw is a companion, is she not? Yet she only travels in the TARDIS in The Wages of Sin.--Skittles the hog - talk 11:48, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't count the UNIT soliders as companions, but, I Do count Liz Shaw as a companion because she is the same as a companion throughout season 7. I don't count the Brig because he's at most a friend of the doctor (if he was a companion why isn't he listed as a companion in "The Web of Fear"?)– The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joe.kearney (talk • contribs) .

Because his appearances in The Web of Fear, The Invasion, Terror of the Zygons and Battlefield (etc. ?) are just one-offs. In season 7, he is in every story and seems to do a damn sight more for the Doctor than Liz ever did.--Skittles the hog - talk 15:31, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

I think that the UNIT people should be considered companions, but the Tenth Doctor examples shouldn't. The characters in the 2009 specials were the same as any other characters who appear in only one episode. If they are companions, then there are new companions in every episode. The families of companions are also recurring characters rather than companions, because the Doctor meets them when he is on Earth, but not in multiple consecutive episodes. That would be like saying that Borua is a companion.Icecreamdif 19:47, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Can we all agree that 'Companion' is, as the article in the Wiki states, an ill-defined term and that while we each may have our individual preferences as to what constitutes a companion, it's just an exercise in fanwanking? I can understand why people like to argue it, but I'm more interested in questions like why everyone seems to like longer words like "assist" instead of "help" or " or "attempt" instead of "try." So long as we agree it's all an exercise in personal taste, it's fine by me, but the true believer aspect occasionally on display saddens me.Boblipton 19:57, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Well, since we have different categories and boxes for companions, we probably should come up with some kind of definition for it.Icecreamdif 21:36, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to agree more with Icecreamdif. If we are going to continue extensively using the term "companion" on this wiki, some kind of definition better than the one we have now needs to be established. I get how there are no in-universe sources to confirm anyone's personal theories, but surely, if we are going to have companion templates, companion categories, identify "companions" as such in their articles, in the Doctors's articles and TV story articles, then we need to be sure that we all have the same idea on what a companion is. Yes, it is fanwanking, but I think it is much more logical and likely for this wiki to establish a guide for its users on what is and isn't a companion than abolishing the term altogether, which is a little bit far-fetched anyway. Just as the decision was passed that Human is to be spelled human here, without any official confirmation of either term, we need to determine which of Lethbridge-Stewart, Liz, Benton, Mike, Astrid, Martha's family, Donna's family, Jackson, Rosita, Christina and Adelaide are and aren't companions. No, this won't stop the debate, it shall rage on, unstoppable for years. But if the wiki says 'she's a companion', 'he isn't', then those who don't see much point in arguing it without official confirmation will be able to rest as pro-Wilfred-companionship and anti-Benton-companionship followers will be able to debate whether these guidelines should be changed. I don't think that the Tenth Doctor's pseudo-companions should be on the list, but I suppose I'll be a bit leaning on the UNIT people. If anyone disagrees with this, then they can argue for their cause, but, as I've probably said a million times in this paragraph, users need to know what the wiki considers companions.. Bigredrabbit 06:35, August 9, 2011 (UTC)