Talk:Grace O'Brien

Companion status

Grace should be considered a single-adventure - similar to Astrid Peth and Lady Christina, shouldn't she? Xx-connor-xX ☎ 21:02, October 7, 2018 (UTC)

Astrid and Christina are both counted as Tenth Doctor companions in this Wiki, so I think Grace should be counted as a 13th Doctor companion. I noticed a mod changed this though so I haven't changed it back. Danochy ☎ 10:00, October 8, 2018 (UTC)

Agree too. We should count her as a single-adventure companion. Lady Junky 20:50, October 10, 2018 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be in agreement here, and nobody who has any strong reasons against her being listed as a companion has come forward - so I guess the edits should be made? I have no clue as to why she was removed from the category anyway, I added her as soon as the episode aired as she was very blatantly a single-adventure companion. Xx-connor-xX ☎ 03:03, October 14, 2018 (UTC)

O'Brien?

Does the story actually tell us she's taken her second husband's surname? Does O'Brien come from within the narrative?
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 11:52, October 8, 2018 (UTC)

I can’t exactly remember, but she’s definitely been marketed as Grace O’Brien at least. So I wouldn’t think it necessary to rename this page: Grace (TWWFTE), until they say her surname out loud in another episode if they haven’t done so already, because we already know it really. Ben Moore512 ☎ 06:55, October 9, 2018 (UTC)

No. Marketing is not a valid in-universe source.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 17:31, October 9, 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna go as far as to say that this is assumption based on her being Graham's wife and his last name being O'Brien, therefore the natural assumption that her last name would be O'Brien as well. --DCLM ☎ 18:16, October 9, 2018 (UTC)

It's not stated in Universe what her surname is, or that she took Graham's surname. On top of that, plenty of women don't take their husband's surname, so there is no reason this should be assumed to be the case here. Danochy ☎ 08:55, October 13, 2018 (UTC)

I'm not stating that it's said anywhere, or indeed is the case. Just stating that it may have been assumption. And that IS a natural assumption after all. Let's not pretend that it isn't. 😉 --DCLM ☎ 09:20, October 13, 2018 (UTC)

No, it absolutely isn't. She was a professional woman who made a carrier working at a hospital. For her to go to all the trouble of doing the paperwork and changing the name to something other than what her colleagues got used to over potentially decades, so that her former patients would not be able to find her because they do not know her new name? And all of that for a second marriage? None of the professional women I know would do that. But naturalness aside, we should not base page names on the naturalness or unnaturalness of assumptions. We should not base them on assumptions, period. I agree that moving the page now would be premature because there is a real possibility that in-universe info would be revealed (e.g., a gravestone), but barring that, the move will have to be made eventually. Amorkuz ☎ 22:55, October 13, 2018 (UTC)