Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Dispute Companions

I'm a bit confused as to why Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart, Sergeant Benton and Mike Yates are not considered companions with the rest of the companions.

I know it's been a longstanding dispute between the fans that they should or should not be included but surely if the actual company that makes the series, in this case the BBC, actually confirms that they are considered companions (as they do on their official site) then they should be considered as companions despite what the fans say. The Official BBC site which lists all of the Classic Series companions is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/companions/ which clearly lists the above three characters as companions.--Seryass (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is Liz there, and those three not? Liz never travelled with the doctor. 86.131.241.72 (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Astrid Peth is a companion?

How can Astrid Peth be considered a companion? She did not travel with the doctor on the TARDIS, She did not appear in more than one episode, and she does not qualify under the Grace Holloway exception because the Tenth Doctor has more than one companion.--Murphoid (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pre-publicity from the BBC stated Astird was a companion for Voyage. StuartDD _{contributions} 09:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious. Why is she any more a companion than the old tourguide guy? Or than the Big Brother girl? Is "companion" entirely an external designation that the BBC can give to anyone? john k (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any one rule for the definition of a companion, but consensus seems to be that, at the very least, being considered a companion by the production team counts. --Brian Olsen (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the definition of Companion is, it's a bit screwy. Astrid who appeared in only 1 story IS a companion, but Jackie who appeared in multiple and travelled in the TARDIS isn't?? Is there not the chance to develop consensus on what a companion is in terms of Wikipedia? --Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 08:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is hard to define what a companion is: A character who travels with The Doctor in the TARDIS from one adventure to a seperate adventure. A noted exception is Grace Holloway who is her Doctors' only companion.--Murphoid (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

BeBoldly removing Astid Peth from the companions table. She just doesn't fit there.--Murphoid (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes she does. We have sources stating that she is a companion. let's not turn her into another Sara (who has 7 references for her being a companion).StuartDD _{contributions} 08:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Having read the "sources" I still disagree. The source call her a "christmas companion" and a "one-off compainion." These terms clearly show that the character is not a full companion but a place holder.--162.95.80.227 (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) - well going by that, the place she was holding was the place of the companion. In any case, why does she have to appear in more than one episode before she can be a companion? That's the bizzare thing about fandom - almost no-one questions Adam's status (when his only trip saw him shoved out the TARDIS) because he was in two stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartDD (talk • contribs) 08:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article, companion must refer only to characters who a) travel with the Doctor and b) appear in more than one story. Changing the definition of companion so that Astrid can be included not only defies the point of the article, but means that dozens (if not hundreds) of other characters should also be included. If Astrid is on this list, then Lynda from Bad Wolf, Ray from Delta and the Bannermen, and all those others should also be on there. I think Astrid's inclusion is influenced solely by the fact that the actress is very famous and some people feel that it gives Doctor Who credibility to list Kylie as a companion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZakManford (talk • contribs) 04:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The most basic definition of "companion" is...secondary character that the producers officially announce as "The Doctor's companion". DonQuixote (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree - she can't be a companion if she's only in one story - but this also means that "The Deadly Assassin" is not the only story to feature no companions.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, she's a companion because the production team says she is. It's as simple as that. Similarly, anyone that the production team doesn't denote as companion isn't a companion. However, we can cite reliable third-party sources (such as Doctor Who Magazine) as expressing alternative viewpoints. DonQuixote (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but by that logic, Susan is only a "companion" by way of "alternate viewpoint" —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 15:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Although it's true that the first four regular cast members were just that, regular cast members as opposed to the Doctor and his companions, after the departure of Ford, Russell and Hill, the formula became "the Doctor and his companions" after which Susan, Ian and Barbara were retroactively classified as companions by the subsequent production teams and the BBC through licensed books and books published directly by BBC Books. If you read the article, this is mentioned. DonQuixote (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but if you read the article as well, you should note that it states that the term "companion" is one "primarily used in Doctor Who fandom" rather than, as you surmise, being a term that only has meaning when dictated by the show's producers. I suggest you attempt to revise the definition in the article to include your theory and see how consensus stacks up. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 18:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's primarily used in fandom, but it's also used in books, documentaries and occasionally in the news media (whenever the Doctor gets a new one). Personally, I think this article should move away from fandom (mainly since this entails a lot of OR) and start moving more towards an academic article which is the goal of Wikipedia in general.

According to the history of the programme, a companion is a secondary character, usually specifically designated by the production team as such, who accompanies the Doctor in his adventure(s). I admit that I might have worded it poorly above, but the main point is that the production team, the BBC and reliable third party sources have a higher authority than fandom. DonQuixote (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to that, and I'd be interested in seeing a revision of the still-unclear definition of what constitutes a "companion" - something I had attempted to clarify in the River Song discussion. Trying to reconcile whether a character meets the definition of "companion" first requires that there is an agreed definition in the first place, and that's clearly been a roadblock in that discussion. Clearly that's not the case among editors, but personal views on what "companion" mean can have no weight... we have to refer to the article's stated definition. I would support your efforts to change it to be more clearly defined in general. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 20:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The production team say she is a companion gfor one episode, so therefore she is a companion for one epiosde. If she's not a companion because she doesn't travel in the TARDIS, then remove Liz Shaw while you're at it. Don't forget to remove Sara Kingdom (with her 7 references for being a companion) and Grace Halloway (also called a companion by the production team) as well. 86.131.239.18 (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"The production team say so" is not part of the definition in the article. —Shübop "Shada Ng" Âlang 16:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone has to say so, else it's orginal research. Who better than the BBC, who in series 4, have listed the companions on the website? Edgepedia (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes a certain amount of sense. But the article doesn't currently define it this way. —Shübop "Shada Ng" Âlang 17:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't definine any way of dealing with it - and actually notes that there is not "official" definition. Fans have different views on companions, so unless you refer to an official source it's WP:POV as to who is companions. The production team have called her a companion - so technically removing her would violate POV. 86.131.239.18 (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Defining "companion" is the entire purpose of the article. If the way it's defined in the article is not sufficient, then... improve the article. —Shübop "Shada Ng" Âlang 22:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Jane note

Doesn't this note from the article contradict itself:

"Sarah Jane Smith is the only companion so far to have served at least two full seasons with two different Doctors each. Sarah joined the Third Doctor in the first story of his final season (The Time Warrior) and left in The Hand of Fear, the second story of the Fourth Doctor's third season."

If she joined in the Third Doctor's final season, she can't have been in two full seasons with him, surely? Percy Snoodle 15:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. It makes no sense. I copied that from List of Doctor Who supporting characters. It might have originally been meant to say that she served a full season with one Doctor, then a full season with another (adding up to two full seasons) — but that's not the way it reads. And since Rose did the same thing, it's not really noteworthy, is it? I've removed it from this page, and I'll remove it from the list of supporting characters too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it rather depends how you count the Christmas special. Is it the concluding story of one season, or the beginning of another? In terms of production, it's probably best thought of as the beginning of a season. But it "feels" to me as a viewer more like the conclusion of the series that precedes it. Most obviously, Doctor Who didn't start, as Sarah Jane Adventures did, with a Christmas pilot. Secondarily, though, both Christmas specials to date have happened immediately after story preceded it. Thus, they feel like conclusions rather than introductions. If you take that view, then Rose didn't, in fact, serve two full seasons, but only nearly did. CzechOut 21:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Christmas specials are the start of the next season (so the first Christmas special was the start of the second series) and is shown as such in some countries.--Choc chik (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Jackie Tyler

In the Episode Army of Ghosts Jackie travels in the TARDIS from the park near her flat to the Torchwood institute 'accidently' because Rose and the doctor forget to show her the door. I know this sounds wrong, but is the fact she traveled in the TARDIS that one time grounds enough to have her as a 'companion' or is there some sort of rule saying it has to be more then once 'or' backwards or forwards in time. I don't particually want her to be acclaimed a companion but I'm not sure about this at all.--Wiggstar69 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In my mind, to be a companion you have to have either had one significant journey in the TARDIS - that is going off-world or through time... not a contemporary Londoner to another part of London, or a space-traveller being taken for a very brief jaunte through space. Or you have been the Doctor's main and more-or-less only support throughout one adventure, which is why I personally see Grace and Donna as companions and not Jackie, Lynda or that woman in The Satan Pit. --GracieLizzie 11:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for filling me in, now I'm sure, but I was worried for a second.--Wiggstar69 13:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's my view. Different people have different opinions and the companion one can be a contentious one in certain-fan circles. As the article mentions, some people don't include Liz Shaw or the Brig others are far more inclusive.--GracieLizzie 13:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I for one certainly think Jackie has done more than other people who are undisputed companions, and am shocked that the WikiProject is showing such uniform resistance to the idea of calling a spade a spade. CzechOut 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

perhaps there should just be some sort of comment on the end

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.248.106.35 (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

My now deleted List of TARDIS travellers in Doctor Who listed a whole bunch of people who travelled just the once in the TARDIS in a similar fashion to Jackie Tyler. For example, see the end of Time and the Rani - if travelling in the TARDIS once alone automatically qualifies you as a companion, then the Seventh Doctor had a lot of companions including Louis Pasteur and Albert Einstein... Wolf of Fenric 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could define a companion as being someone who was invited by the Doctor to travel with him? Or alternatively, at very least, the Doctor should show at some point a clear intention that he was planning to make several journeys with that character (even if they never get to).I'm not sure but I don't think Jackie was ever invited to travel with the Doctor whereas Astrid was. Just a suggestion for a way to define "companions". I am happy to be corrected. --Qualal (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, some kind of agreed definition would be helpful, as several editors seem to have their own definitions that are separate from the article, from which they base their decisions. The article is actually very vague and somewhat contradictory about this:

• "a term used to describe a character who travels with and shares the adventures of the Doctor."
• "As a technical term, "companion" is more common within fan circles; the press uses the term more loosely, and often refers to the characters as "assistants". The series itself does not apply the term consistently."
• "Most companions travel in the TARDIS with the Doctor for more than one adventure, although there are exceptions."
• "New series companions have also a more flexible tenure than their classical predecessors."
• "Companions have assumed a variety of roles in Doctor Who, as involuntary passengers, as assistants per se (particularly Liz Shaw), as disciples, as friends, and as fellow adventurers."

...and even though companions such as Liz Shaw are listed in the "Disputed Companions" section, they're still listed in the chart as companions. So, the article is officially giving them that status, despite the "disputed" mention. Even the travel requirement does not seem to be consistently used, so I'm not sure the addition of an "invitation" requirement would help, especially if we're already including "involuntary passengers" as part of the definition. I would love to see this more specifically defined, though. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 17:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sara Kingdom

Wouldn't it be appropriate to note Sara Kingdom only as a disputed companion? She was considered by the producers as a possible companion briefly before casting, but ultimately Marsh was only contracted for the one story. It wasn't, i gather, a situation like, say, Tegan or Nyssa, where they had this extension clause that kept getting activated. Marsh was never in it for anything other than the one, admittedly long, recording block. Plus, the BBC's official website doesn't name her as a companion. On that basis alone she's surely contestable, isn't she? CzechOut 07:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is already in the article, under the "Disputed companions" section. --Brian Olsen 15:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is inconsistent in how it deals with those companions mentioned in sections 3 and 5. If we're going to include Sara in sections 3 and 5.1, why is Chang Lee only in section 3? Why isn't Jackie in section 5.9 and 5.10? Disputed companions aren't handled consistently across the WikiProject. Maybe it would be a good idea to include all disputed companions in brackets or italics when put into lists across the Project? That way the Project is being neutral, yet helpfully noting controversy, in its handling of these "special case" companions. CzechOut 13:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fan opinion

I'm noticing a lot of reference to fan opinion. Unless it can be sourced from a reliable source, giving information about fan opinion is original research.--Crossmr 17:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Along the same lines, is it not worth citing licensed publications about various characters' status as companions? A number of books from the 1980s and early 1990s listed companions, and in some cases gave reasons for according or withholding that status. Granted, it doesn't resolve questions about Grace, Mickey, Jackie and Adam, but it seems fairly relevant to discussions of Katarina and Benton and so on.--Karen | Talk | contribs 05:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Donna as disputed companion

Unless anyone disagrees I am going to delete the sentance in the disputed companion section concerning Donna Noble as she has just been confirmed as the new full time companion.SkorponokX 13:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent removals

For some reason, this article had been changed into a list of TARDIS travellers, including material which listed every meeting between a companion and a Doctor who weren't originally together on the series (eg. Jamie and the 6th Doctor in The Two Doctors). This has been reverted: the former material is woefully obscure trivia, and way off topic for the premise; the latter is taken care of in relevant companion/episode articles. We should not view an article as a dumping ground for practically anything even tangentially related, particularly when it can be handled better elsewhere. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 10:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Appearances

This is an encyclopedia which purports to list facts. Accuracy is nothing bad. I think listing appearances by Season/Series is highly misleading - e.g. Ben and Polly appear throughout Season 4 - Jamie does not although he is in some of Season 4; Katarina appeared in just two stories of Season 3 but certainly not the whole thing; and, as it currently appears to the casual reader, the Ninth Doctor was accompanied by Rose Tyler, Adam Mitchell and Captain Jack Harkness from "Rose" to "The Parting of the Ways" in Series 1, with Adam and Jack leaving in the latter for Jack to return in "Smith and Jones" in Series 3...which is obviously wrong... Please could editors discuss this point here such that a consensus may be reached? Wolf of Fenric 16:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Do these companions lack information on their first and final appearances in their articles? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 16:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but is a casual reader expected to click on each an every companion in order to find this information? My point is the information displayed here on this page is misleading. Wolf of Fenric 17:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right.I think we should replace the series bit with from... to... What does anyone else think?--OZOO (What?) 17:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it leads to unnecessary clutter, I'm for leaving it vague. However, if it can be formatted in a manner that doesn't make it look a mess, and there's consensus in favour... --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 17:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this for formatting: If the were only in for a few episodes, we could say something like, for Adam, (2 episodes in Series 1). If they were in for the whole series, just say the series. This gives people an appropriate sense of the scale of their involvement, and doesn't seem too cluttered. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To avoid clutter and make it tidier, how about a few small tables? E.g.

===with the First Doctor===

Companion	Actor	First serial	Last serial
Susan Foreman	Carole Ann Ford	An Unearthly Child	The Dalek Invasion of Earth
...	...	...	...
Polly	Anneke Wills	The War Machines	The Tenth Planet

===with the Second Doctor===

Companion	Actor	First serial	Last serial
Ben Jackson	Michael Craze	The Tenth Planet	The Faceless Ones

etc., etc. Wolf of Fenric 19:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks like a good format. I'd go with that idea StuartDD ( t • c ) 19:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with that one is that it doesn't immediately give the reader an idea of the scope of their involvement if they aren't aware of the episode order. I still think it would be better to just note the number of episodes/serials they were in, and let the reader go to the companion's article for specifics. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added Season and Series columns to rectify this. Wolf of Fenric 21:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And a Number of serials column on reflection. Wolf of Fenric 00:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And I've removed {{Doctorwhocompanions}}. That much was overkill. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Martha and Donna

I changed the episode count to the number of appearances to date. Although it has been confirmed they will appear in more, stating that they have appeared in more than the current number of episodes is technically wrong. StuartDD ( t • c ) 12:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I quite agree with that. If they haven't appeared yet, they don't have that number of appearances. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 13:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Consistancy

If a Doctor's reign starts in the first episode they appear -which is only at the VERY end of the regeneration story - then the companions reign should ALSO start at their first appearance, even if they don't travel in that story. Martha doesn't travel in Smith and Jones till the end, but she still counts as a companion for that story. StuartDD ( t • c ) 12:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled - Martha is listed as starting in "Smith and Jones". What is the problem? Wolf of Fenric 14:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Stuart may be referring to the distinctions made for other companions (eg. Nyssa, Jack etc). --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 15:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean, some companions have a "fist serial" listing, and a "first seen in" note on the number of serials. If we are counting the start of a doctor as the first story he appears in (when it is at the end of an episode - and should NOT be counted), then the companions should also start from when they first appear, even if they don't actually travel in the Tardis during that story till the very end.

So for example The Android Invasion should be the "first serial" for Turlough. StuartDD ( t • c ) 17:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have done the count based on when there is a mutual understanding between the Doctor and the respective companion that they are to join the Doctor on his travels. In the cases of Steven and Adric, they stow away and gain acceptance in their next serial. Zoe stows away, but gets accepted in her same story. Similarly, Rose and Martha share adventures with the Ninth and Tenth Doctors, respectively, in their first episodes before becoming companions, but the Doctor collects them and whisks them off before the close of these first episodes. Also, since when has the Fourth Doctor serial The Android Invasion been the first serial for Turlough, an exclusively Fifth Doctor companion? Wolf of Fenric 20:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Nyssa - appears, helps out as a guest character in The Keeper of Traken, then was written in as a companion in Logopolis. Jack - appears and helps in "The Empty Child" and "The Doctor Dances", but only becomes a companion in the latter episode and only because the Doctor is obliged to rescue him from his ship. Wolf of Fenric 20:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The words "origonal research" come to mind. - But I'll accept that I am wrong.

"since when has the Fourth Doctor serial The Android Invasion been the first serial for Turlough, an exclusively Fifth Doctor companion? "

- sorry, must have read the wrong line, it's Harry Sullivan.

StuartDD ( t • c ) 21:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also missunderstanding the table - because that serial was a long time after he left. StuartDD ( t • c ) 21:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There is also a problem with Jack's listing, since he refused the only time he was formally invited to join the Doctor in his travels, his first serial can't actually be determined by the serial of invitation. Therefore his first serial should be listed either as The Empty Child or Boom Town, but for some reason it is listed as Utopia which was his 5th? serial.--Jacobpaige (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the listing under the Tenth Doctor - if you look up to the Ninth Doctor section, the series one span is there. StuartDD _{contributions} 08:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

First serials column

How about changing the "first serial" column for the (small) number of companions who joined in a different episode to the one they were introduced.
Currently the format has "serial A" under first serial, and "first seen in Serial B" under number of serials. Instead, we could put both in the first serial column like this
introduced: Serial B
joined: Serial A
so for Adric it would be Introduced: Full Circle, joined: State of Decay StuartDD ( t • c ) 11:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Companions details

The current article states that:
New series companions have also a more flexible tenure than their classical predecessors. Of the Doctor's six companions over the first four series, four (Jack, Mickey, Donna, and Martha) have at some point left the Doctor's company, only to return several episodes or even seasons later, for one or more further adventures.
This is technically incorrect, as Donna and Martha haven't rejoined yet. Also, Astrid hasn't become a companion yet so the Doctor has not yet had six companions. It should be changed to something that makes this clear. StuartDD ( t • c ) 09:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on the first part, but the number is correct - Rose, Adam, Jack, Mickey, Donna, Martha. --Brian Olsen 01:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

so it is. I'd change the line myself, but I couldn't come up with good wording. StuartDD ( t • c ) 10:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

i've changed it to: "New series companions have also a more flexible tenure than their classical predecessors. Of the Doctor's six companions over the first four series, two (Jack and Mickey) have left the Doctor's company at some point, only to return later for further adventures. This will continue in series 4, with Martha and Donna returning to the show." - not the best wording, so please fix that if you want to. StuartDD ( t • c ) 09:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Multi Doctor stories

Should we put details of companions in the multi doctor specials. Sarah Jane Smith and Susan Foreman in Five Doctors, and Jamie McCrimmon in Two Doctors? StuartDD ( t • c ) 09:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't see why not, so I added them.--OZOO (What?) 10:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sara Kingdom references

Is there any need to have seven references on Sara? What do they actually say anyway? StuartDD ( t • c ) 20:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

With the status of Sara Kingdom much debated in fandom, the citations all refer to examples of BBC licensed media in which Sara is noted as a companion. Multiple references adds validity to this page's claim and surely citations are good for any statement made on Wikipedia? Wolf of Fenric 14:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes references are good, I was just wondering if there was a need for seven different ones. But if they are useful, then we should have them. StuartDD _{contributions} 15:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

what's with the double numbers?

The "number of serials" column has numerous entries of the form "3, (9 in total)". What do these mean? —Tamfang (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's for companions who featured under more than one doctor. The first is the total under doctor x, the second is the total between the two doctors. it is a bit confusing though. StuartDD _{contributions} 10:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in total could be changed to with all doctors or something like that. Karl (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree changing it, so it makes sense. StuartDD _{contributions} 13:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Great image, but

I like the new image, but I think we should say who each picture is of. I my self am not sure of some of them. StuartDD _{contributions} 19:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm desperately working on a caption for it. For some odd reason the normal way I write a caption is not working. I'm going to try another method now...Please bear with me... Wolf of Fenric (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, there's a first attempt. Should I trim it to just first names of the characters and/ore remove actor names to save space? Is the small text too small - bearing in mind enlarging it will make the box even bigger?...Your thoughts... Wolf of Fenric (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks alright, but I think we could lose the actor names, as we give those in the table of companions further down. StuartDD _{contributions} —Preceding comment was added at 11:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to see how it looks with just first names as I think we can reduce the number of lines taken up that way. I've viewed the page in a number of sizes and the names in the box remain fixed whilst the main text shifts accordingly, so I think names are split over lines on more than just my screen. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's tidier and more compact like that. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good. Thanks StuartDD _{contributions} 20:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Astrid Peth

I'd just like to flag editors of this page to the discussion regarding merging Astrid Peth into "Voyage of the Damned". Please contribute to the discussion by going to this page. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Death by Cyberman

I believe that one of the doctor's companions died whilst killing a cyberman using his gold insignia badge (the companions, not the cybermans). This doesn't seem to be listed under the deaths section. Does any one know if this is correct and who it was?

The only companion to come close to that is Adric, who died in Earthshock. He wasn't killing a cyberman when he died (although he may have done during the episode), but was killed when a spaceship he was on crashed into the Earth. He is listed in the deaths section. --OZOO 08:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

River Song

This one's a bit confusing, I'm sure you would all agree, but it was made very clear that River Song has travelled with the Doctor within the future of his 10th incarnation. That makes her an official companion, right? This is all stated within canon material, and the Doctor believes it, and recognizes the results of his future self's actions. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 18:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we don't know nearly enough about River Song's times with the Doctor to judge whether she's a companion or not. Plus, if she is a companion, she is a companion of a yet-to-be-revealed future incarnation, and she's certainly not a companion of the Tenth Doctor! So she doesn't really have a place on this page either way... (Yet) DBD 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Since she recognizes his face and notices that he looks younger, I'd say it's a definite that she's a companion of the same incarnation. And it's clearly established that she is/will be a companion. I know this is the first time this has ever happened in the series though so it's without precedent. But I don't see how there's any question about that. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 16:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

They (will) have some sort of relationship, but it has not been established she will travel with the doctor. Remember the line "Thanks for coming when I called, as always"? Companionship has to be established in current events or explicit statements. Neither is satisfied. — Edokter • Talk • 21:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but where does the requirement "Companionship has to be established in current events or explicit statements." come from? Is that your own definition or something official? (It's not in the article). The article suggests that it's not a clearly defined term, and lists one-episode-not-travelling-with companions such as Grace Holloway and Astrid Peth as "companions." Additionally it's established that the Doctor has (will have) taken her to the Singing Towers, which constitutes traveling with him. Just because the Doctor "comes when she calls" doesn't mean at one point she wasn't a "companion." He comes when Martha calls, too :) —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Astrid Peth was explicitly announced as a companion. But we have never seen the Doctor and River Song traveling together on screen, so she is not a companion. Stating that she is, or will be, is pure speculation (in our continuity). — Edokter • Talk • 10:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been entirely established within the dialogue of the program that she is a future companion of the Doctor's 10th incarnation. I'm not concerned with whether she has been "announced" as a companion, and explaining that Astrid Peth was given the status in this way does not prove your point. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 15:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's two things going against that. One, she could have been lying. Two, it's been mentioned in the program (specifically the current revival) that time is always in flux, and therefore she may only be a possible companion who can readily disappear in a history change if the writers so wish it. As it is now, we can't really be sure of anything, and anything is mere speculation. DonQuixote (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's speculation to exclude her because "she may be lying" and the idea that the time stream could change could apply to any, or all of the companions. It's possible by that line of thought, that Ace could be erased from the time stream and never have been a companion, but we work within the details presented within the series, and, like you say, don't speculate. And those details presented, as the term has so far been (loosely) defined in this article, clearly put her in the "companion" category. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 17:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a classic case of proving your point. To use an extreme example, if someone were to say that they went to the moon and found that it was made out of cheese, unless the journey was well-documented, it can't be taken as being true. Likewise, if I were to say that the moon was made out of some type of rock, unless I go to the moon and bring back samples, what I say can't be taken to be true either. In this regard, unless it's shown onscreen that she's one of the Doctor's companions (more specifically the Tenth Doctor), we can't say one thing or the other without being speculation. Speculation is fine in-and-of-itself, but there's some people here at Wikipedia that frown on that sort of thing. DonQuixote (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much more could be said on-screen to demonstrate this. Are you looking for the Doctor to actually use the word "companion"? She says she has traveled with him, and the Doctor accepts it, and also accepts that his future self gave him a way to save her. And on top of that she "proved" it to the Doctor by whispering his name in his ear. I don't know what other kind of "proof" you're looking for. We didn't see Gallifrey destroyed "on-screen", but the Doctor said "on-screen" that it happened, so we accept it as being canon. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 20:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is that they're still making the show. The destruction of Gallifrey is a past event, so if a character says that that's what happened, then it can be taken as given that that's what happened. River Song being a companion of the Doctor's is a future event both with respect to the Doctor and to the show in particular. Since River Song being a future companion of the Doctor is in the future with regards to the show itself, and since the writers can change that status any time they wish, we can't be sure that she will be a companion until such a thing is is written, produced and aired (or at the very least confirmed by the producers). Simple as that. We can't predict how the show will play out in the future. For all we know, future writers might bring the character back but not as a companion. That's the rub. DonQuixote (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And if such a thing occurs, where the continuity is changed later, this article can be edited to reflect it. But for now, we deal with the current continuity, which says that River Song IS a future companion. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 03:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In the current continuity, she is intimate with the Doctor. The producers have not said that she will be a future companion nor have they said that she will be returning to the show any time soon. If she returns like Donna did, then we can say that she's a companion, otherwise it is pure speculation to say that she will be a companion on the show. The companion, from a production viewpoint, fills a specific role in the narrative. River does not fill that role at this point in the programme's history. She is not a companion yet. For all we know, she may not even return to the show. For all we know, she may only return to the show and be a recurring character like Jackie Tyler. For all we know, she may return to the show as an evil villainess and all we know of her so far could be one big lie. Saying one thing or the other is pure speculation. DonQuixote (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be really hung up on the statements of the producers and some kind of dramatic purpose that they have intended for the "companion" in order for the term to apply. I don't think either is terribly relevant to what I'm trying to say. Of course when I say "future" - I don't mean "future episodes" - I simply mean "the future." We're talking about the fictional universe of Doctor Who, not the inner workings and intentions of Russel T. Davies and BBC Wales :) She's not a companion "yet" as far as the Doctor's timeline, no, but it's already happened for her, and it's already been presented to us in the context of the series as a fact. I don't see why it should even be a question, honestly. She's a future companion of the Doctor - whether we ever even SEE her again for the rest of the series - it has already been established. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 08:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, you can't predict the future and I can't predict the future. River claims to know the Doctor. You claim that she's one of his future companions. Unless we are 100% sure that in the future she will become his companion, we can't say that she is. For all we know, and that is the key phrase, she could be something other than his companion. I mean, you and I can continue to speculate on her relationship (companion or otherwise), but that's all it is -- speculation. Unless you can prove that the River Song who appears in "Silence in the Library" wasn't some clone of the Doctor's aunt's uncle's cousin's sister-in-law's granddaughter's friend's drinking buddy that an enemy of his created and sent to the Library in order to mess with his mind, or anything else not resembling a companion, you can't say that she is one. The only way to get such proof at this point is if she returns in some capacity (a companion, a recurring character, an evil villain, a clone, whatever) in some future episode. If she returns as a companion in a spin-off medium, then that might get a little complicated. DonQuixote (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying in general, but the point here is that, as "companion" is defined in this article, she fits every requirement. If you're suggesting that she shouldn't fit the definition, then you need to adjust that definition. Speculating further on the details of their relationship at this point is pointless. Using the word "future" is perfectly reasonable in the context of a series about time travelers, and it's been entirely established that River Song has travelled with the Doctor... there's not further "proof" needed. If the continuity changes later, that can be addressed here. Her possible appearances in future spin-off media is irrelevant to this issue. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 16:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, If I was a Dr Who writer, I would make River turn out to be an evil character that murdered the doctors actual wife, stole the sonic screwdriver and in the process found out the doctors name which she then used to save her own life (somehow knowing how and when she would die)......Now you could argue till the sun comes down about how plausible that storyline is but in reality you can't avoid the fact that the writers of Doctor Who can do anything they damn well want with River and we wont know till we see it on screen. Stuff that happens in the "future" of the series is pure speculation until it happens. End of story.--Qualal (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

River Song: evidence & definitions

(unindented-ssa) You know, you keep saying that she fills every requirement for a companion. Ok, if you can prove 100% that she's a companion and not, say, the Rani disguised as a human by way of the Chameleon Arch, then I'll change my view and support your position of including her. And no, it hasn't been established that she traveled with the Doctor -- she just claimed she did. Again, the key point is that we don't know what the writers plan to do with her, and guessing the future is speculation (companion, recurring character, evil twin, whatever). DonQuixote (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

And you keep demanding "proof" - but we're talking about a work of fiction... I can't "prove" anything, and neither can you. By your argument, we can't "prove" that Rose isn't The Rani in disguise, either! We can't approach this from that perspective... all we have is the information presented in the program, and there's no reason to question it. Yes, River Song "claimed" she traveled with The Doctor, but The Doctor accepts it entirely. There are plenty of details in the series that are presented in dialogue that we accept as realities, and include as "facts" in this and other related articles, without discounting them as mere "claims". The Doctor only "claims" that Gallifrey was destroyed. Rose only "claims" that Jackie and Parallel Pete have conceived a child - we didn't witness that event, did we? But we accept those things as true, unless they are somehow contradicted later. There's no reason to approach these details with such a ridiculous amount of skepticism... if we were to consistently apply your approach to this issue to everything else in the program, we'd have to delete 90% of every WP article about Doctor Who.

What the writers "plan to do with her" is irrelevant, because we can't know that, and speculation about that can't be taken into consideration. If the entire series were canceled tomorrow and we'd never see another episode, or piece of spin-off media... we'd still have the information presented in SitL/FotD, and that tells us that she's a "companion" (as currently defined in the article) of The Doctor in "the future" (The Doctor's future within the fictional universe, not the future of the series). I agree we can't guess the "future" of the series, but we have information (from the past episodes of the series - a series which, don't forget, is about time travel) of what the fictional "future" holds for the Doctor. It's not speculation that we know about this fictional future! And that information includes River Song as a significant person in The Doctor's life who travels with him on at least one occasion, by his invitation. That is a companion, regardless of whatever other details might be revealed later about their relationship. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 19:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Doctor claimed that Gallifrey was destroyed, but then again so did the writers and the producers. The Doctor claimed that Rose was a companion, but then again so did the writers and the producers and we also got to see her entire trip from beginning to end. This is one of the reasons why a lot of the editors on here want citations for information like this.

River on the other hand...not as much documentation. All we know is that she is intimate with the Doctor. We have no idea whether this is because she is a future companion or if it's because of some other reason. So unless you can prove it, it's just speculation. At this point, only the writers and producers know (if they're even thinking about this at all).DonQuixote (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we have no idea whether we will see her in future episodes within an at-that-very-moment time stream serving in the "companion" role. But, nevertheless, by every definition set forth here in this article, and with these two episodes as reference points, River Song "was" a "companion," in her own relative past; and "will be" in The Doctor's relative future. Can we at least agree on that point? If not, what part of the definition of "companion" is not met?—Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 23:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, can't agree with that because it's never been established that she was a companion even with respect to her personal history. She might be like Professor Travers or Commodore Travers from Terror of the Vervoids or Sabalom Glitz -- characters who have met the Doctor more than once but aren't necessarily companions (Commodore Travers, like River, only appeared in one story and referenced off-screen adventures). It's your assumption that, because she met the Doctor, she is/was/will be his companion. Unless you can prove it (that is, she's not like the above characters, etc.), it's just speculation. DonQuixote (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

She's not like them. She met, AND traveled with, and became very close to the Doctor. Why does this fail your test? Again, what part of the definition of "companion" is not met?—Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 14:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you know she's not like them? Have you proof? If not, then my speculations are as good as your speculations, because that's all they are -- speculations. DonQuixote (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There you go again with that word "proof". This is fiction. Nothing can be "proven." But I can give you the following quotes from Doctor Who Confidential which demonstrate that she is not only more significant than Sabalom Glitz, for example, but that she has travelled with The Doctor, in The TARDIS.

• "Here's a woman who travels with the Doctor, therefore she knows him" - Euros Lyn (Director)
• "The squareness gun ended up in the Tardis" ... "it's the same squareness gun, it's Captain Jack's older one, pilfered from the Tardis locker by River Song" - Steven Moffatt
• [By whispering his name in his ear] "he knows she's absolutely who she says she is and what she's been telling him is the truth" - Alex Kingston
• "They've obviously got a lot of shared history still to have" - David Tennant
• "River Song is one of the most important characters we've seen in the series... someone who is vital to his life" - Russel T. Davies

All of which back up what is already evident in the program dialogue, that she has traveled with him in the TARDIS:

• "I've seen whole armies turn and run away and he'd just swagger off back to his TARDIS" - River Song
• "Where are we this time... "Going by your face, I'd say it's early days for you... Crash of the Byzantium - have we done that yet? ... Picnic at Asgard? Have we done Asgard yet?"
• "I do know the Doctor. But in the future. His personal future."
• River Song describes that The Doctor took her to The Singing Towers in their most recent encounter.
• River Song is in possession of The Doctor's sonic screwdriver which belongs to his future self.
• River Song is in possession of "the squareness gun"

And, in case you try to contend that she's "lying" - everything River Song has told the Doctor, he accepts, after is verified in his mind by:

• River whispering his name in his ear, after which he believes her story.
• His realization that his future self gave his current self a way to save her by giving her the sonic scewdriver.
• The Doctor doesn't believe that he can open the TARDIS with a snap of his fingers, as River says, but then he tries it, and it works, further demonstrating her knowledge of his future (and of The TARDIS).

Does that satisfy your requirement for so-called "proof" ?? —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 17:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And I'll repeat my still-unanswered question one more time: What part of the definition of "companion" is not met? —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 17:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The show may be a work of fiction, but the show itself is a real thing being written, produced and aired. Anything that you guess about the show's future, even guesses based on the content of the show at present, is just that -- a guess. The point is that you have to prove that your guess is correct.

Most of what you say and quote above doesn't prove anything other than she's someone who is important to the Doctor. Therefore they fail as any sort of proof for her status as "compaion". So your guess cannot be proven based on these.

The only thing that actually supports her being a companion is the quote by Euros Lyn. It's things like this that I'm talking about when I say proof. Currently we have one person involved with the production, the director, who thinks she's a companion. Now if you can get more things like this from other people involved in the production, particularly the people who control what characters will return in what capacity (such as "companion"), then you will have proven your case. DonQuixote (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No guesses. No speculation. Future episodes do not matter. I completely agree that we should not rely on speculation about things we will see on our TV screens in our future. That's pointless. But, for the thousandth time - it doesn't matter. What I'm talking about is entirely within the scope of the fictional universe as it has been presented to us in previous episodes. River Song is a "companion" of The Doctor, in his future. That's not a guess or speculation - it's been established in the show, and is supported by statements of the cast & crew above.

Now, as for your comments on the above quotes - I find it interesting that you discount the director of both episodes as only "thinking" that she's a companion. Whose opinion would you value more highly?? Oh, hey, how about Steven Moffatt? Yeah, the guy who wrote the whole thing and is the future producer/head writer of the series? Yeah, I would think he's pretty important. And he added in the part about the Squareness Gun specifically to give us the information that River Song had taken it from the TARDIS. Oh, but I suppose he only "thinks" she's a companion, and he's somehow wrong?

I've provided you with "proof" despite disagreeing that it was not required, as a matter of being diplomatic with you. The least you can do is satisfy the question you've so far ignored after I've asked it repeatedly: What part of the definition of "companion" is not met? —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 22:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)In lieu of repeating myself, I'm just going to summarise the main points. You claim that she's a future companion, like Donna. Fine. An equally valid claim (to choose the best one posited above) is that she's just someone whom the Doctor visits from time to time, like Professor Travers. Unless you can prove the former rather than the latter, your claim has equal weight as my claim. So to answer your question explicitly, part of being a companion is not being just someone the Doctor visits from time to time. Even more explicitly, and outside the fictional universe, a companion is someone who is not just a recurring character. (Note that I have mentioned these above several times.) So prove that she's like Donna and not like Professor Travers.

The only way to do that at this point is via statements by the production team. The production team can bring back the character any way they wish -- be it companion, recurring character, evil villainess, whatever. The director, although an important person in "Silence in the Library", doesn't have much to say about returning characters (unless he writes a script that gets accepted by the production team). So until the character is brought back as a Donna-like character or a Professor Travers-like character, anything we say is mere speculation. DonQuixote (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets move this over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Professor River Song should be added as a companion. DonQuixote (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been moved back here by other editors.

So, to respond to the other points above, as to why River Song is more than just "someone the Doctor visits from time to time" or "someone who is not just a recurring character." These aren't part of the definition in the article, although they are somewhat reasonable. Although her significance and "travel" status have already been established above. And the only real requirement according to the article is that she travels with him and "shares his adventures", which has been established as well. She's a companion of the Doctor's future. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 13:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it hasn't been "established". You keep saying that it's been established, but where's the proof? Nowhere in the dialog is anything that differentiates her from just someone the Doctor visits from time to time. As far as we know, she can be either one. So at this point, claiming that she's Donna-like has as much validity as claiming that she's Professor Travers-like. DonQuixote (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For one thing "Donna-like" is not a requirement to be a "companion". That's your own self-imposed requirement. And I've clearly made my case in the above discussion, and it's not worth wasting time and space (pun intended) to repeat it. There is nothing else that I can say if you simply refuse to listen to reason. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 02:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You've completely missed the point there. I meant "Donna-like" as in "companion" vs "Professor Travers-like" as in "person the Doctor visits from time to time" -- I just wrote "Donna-like" and "Professor Travers-like" because I didn't want to write out "person the Doctor visits from time to time" over and over again. Please pay attention. And frankly, you haven't made your case at all. What you wish is quite different from what is true. You may wish River to be a companion, but unless you can prove it, it's just your wish. As I've said, someone else might wish that she's just a person whom the Doctor visits from time to time, but unless they can prove it, they're no more correct than you are. DonQuixote (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Reread the above info, please, if there's any doubt, and see summary below. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 05:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

River Song - which Doctor(s) did/will she know?

If consensus is that she's not to be listed among the 10th Doctor's companions, then I'd like to suggest she be listed in a new section called "Future Companions" or maybe "Possible Future Companions". She's a unique case in the series, but clearly significant, and I think should be treated as such in this article. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not going to work. 'Future' and 'possible' both denote a level of speculation that we simply cannot work with. A note explaining River's relationship would survive, but is also already explained in the episode's articles. — Edokter • Talk • 22:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion, Edokter. There's every reason to include her somehow on this page. If my suggested section title would make it appear speculative, then perhaps you have an alternate wording in mind? She's unique and significant, and explicity described within the program to be a companion of the Doctor, in her relative past, and his relative future. There is zero speculation there. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 23:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't know which doctor (10th, 11th or 100th) she is the companion of. So we could name the section Companion of unknown doctor. Karl (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we know that? She clearly recognized his face, and commented that she had never seen him that young. That clearly points to the idea that "her" Doctor was of the same incarnation, doesn't it? Is there a reason to interpret that differently? —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 16:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding River Song saying that she has not seen the Doctor this young. Remember, the current incarnation of the Doctor (#10) is far older than the first incarnation of the Doctor who looks a lot older. I would have to check the ages of the actors at the time they portrayed the Doctor, but David Tennant appears to be the youngest actor to take on the role. The Doctor could have a future incarnation which appears younger than his 10th incarnation. Who knows; Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, or Tom Felton could one day pop up as the Doctor once their stints in the Harry Potter film series ends, but the Doctor would then be older than he is now.

One must also remember that there is a dream diary out there that was written by John Smith and kept by Joan Redfern when the Doctor became human in "Human Nature." River Song could have gotten her hands on that book, so would know all of the faces of the Doctor.

Even though it is alluded to that she has traveled in the TARDIS with the Doctor, that would not mean instant companionship. Remember Margaret Blaine has traveled in the TARDIS albeit in egg form. Ida Scott also had a short hop in the TARDIS from "The Impossible Planet" to the rocket. Jackie Tyler has had one trip in the TARDIS from the Powell Estate to Torchwood Tower. Not the best of trips, but still trips. Sally Sparrow and Larry Nightengale have been in the TARDIS in "Blink." The Master stole the TARDIS and had a trip too. He even had his own companion out for a trip, Lucy Saxon.

So, let's wait until she is seen on screen as a companion, or until it in mentioned that it has happened off screen.

There is even speculation that River Song is Rose Tyler regenerated with no memory of who she was before, if I remember the discussions correctly. - LA @ 07:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

AND River could turn out to be evil, may never have travelled with the doctor and might somehow be deceiving everyone involved. Anything could happen because we are all at the mercy of the writers ;-) Personally I think an evil River would be awesome :-)--Qualal (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Too true, and another possibility is that she could just be someone who's met the Doctor more than once, like (as I've mentioned above) Professor Travers, Commodore Travers, Sabalom Glitz or Jackie Tyler. But I wouldn't put it past the writers to make into the alternate form of the recurring character -- like the Master, the Rani, and Davros. DonQuixote (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Proof of "companion" status

Irregardless of whether her travels will ever be documented on screen, (something I highly doubt), River Song is a future companion and indeed possible wife. The episode itself strongly implies she's a future companion and possibly even the Doctor's lover and/or wife. Implication is not enough to go on here, but confirmation of her companion status is given in Doctor Who Confidential. Anthony Head, who narrates the series, says in the opening two minutes of the Confidential episode "Rivers Run Deep", "it seems the future is already written for the Doctor and his adventurous companion to come" referring to River Song. Given this reliable source, we know River Song is a future companion. The only grey area that remains is how "intimate" her relationship is with the Doctor and that is not a primary concern of this particular article. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The episode doesn't "strongly" imply that she's he's companion -- it only implies that she's someone he's met and is intimate with. The only thing that it "strongly" implies is that they have a close relationship. Apart from that...it's rather vague.

As for Confidential, after watching it, apart from that one line it doesn't say very much, but the producers of Confidential felt enough about it to mention it, so you can cite them if you want. But then again, even Steven Moffat, the writer and creater of the character, says that it's all speculation. DonQuixote (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As "companion" is defined in this article, she completely qualifies. The episode and Confidential both do more than "imply" that, under this definition, she clearly is:

• "A character who travels with and shares the adventures of the Doctor."
• At least one of the following: "involuntary passengers, as assistants per se (particularly Liz Shaw), as disciples, as friends, and as fellow adventurers."

And she has traveled with him on at least one occasion, and at least 3 occasions, if you take the "we" in River's phrases such as "Have we done Asgard yet?" as plural rather than a 2nd-person-royal-"we". Either way she qualifies under:

• "Most companions travel in the TARDIS with the Doctor for more than one adventure, although there are exceptions; "

If her travels were intermittent, rather than continuous, she still qualifies under

• "a more flexible tenure" ... "left the Doctor's company at some point, only to return later for further adventures."

And while she qualifies under the criteria above,

• she's much more significant than Grace Holloway or Astrid Peth, who are listed here as "companions" in their respective Doctors' charts.

So, in summary:

• She fits the definition in the article
• We have dialogue describing her travels with The Doctor
• We have the episode director who tells us that she "travels with The Doctor."
• We have Steven Moffatt describing how she took the squareness gun from the TARDIS.
• We have an official program's narration referring to River as "his adventurous companion to come."

What else can possibly be needed to demonstrate that she should simply be listed in this one article with this one tiny word "companion" associated with her name???? —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 05:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would need to actually see River travel with the Doctor or be invited to travel in an actual official DW episode before I would be happy with calling her a companion. Right now everything we know about River is essentially what she says she did and what others (ouside the episode) say she did. Also, what is said within the actual episode is vague and leaves the possibility of things not being what they seem. The case for River being a companion seems to rely heavily on sources outside of the episode. Without these secondary sources of evidence the case for "River the companion" weakens considerably. The cases for other companions however, tend to be able to stand up on their own because its difficult to argue with things that are explicitly seen and stated in an episode. I agree that secondary souces offer evidence but disagree that they are definitive proof. So far we have not _seen_ anything. River did not travel with the doctor and she was never invited to travel. For me, seeing is proof. In fact, I would actually really like to hear if there is any known example of a character generally accepted to be a companion that has NOT been seen, on screen, in an official episode, being invited by the Doctor or travelling with the Doctor on the tardis. (I'm genuinely curious is there anyone?)--Qualal (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. If and when we see River actually going off on adventures with the Doctor, then we can list her. But not a single episode has (yet) been made where she actually is a companion. — Edokter • Talk • 11:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"A character who travels with and shares the adventures of the Doctor." -- you're just assuming that without any evidence. She could just be a person whom the Doctor meets from time to time -- like Professor Travers. And we don't have dialoge describing her travels with the Doctor -- we only have dialog describing her meetings with the Doctor. Etc., etc. You're just jumping to conclusions. So unless you can prove your claim, that is show how your conclusion can be reached without jumping to it, than it's no more valid than someone else's claim that she's just a person he visits from time to time. They're both speculations. (BTW, the episode sets up how she can share adventures with the Doctor without traveling in the TARDIS, like Professor Travers or Commodore Travers or etc. Also, being in the TARDIS to get the squareness gun doesn't automatically mean that she travled in it.)

As for show-related and not in-universe related...the director says that he thinks she's a companion, fine. The producers of Confidential think that she's a companion, fine. On the other hand we have the creator of the character and the writer of the episode and the future producer of the programme, Steven Moffat, saying that it's all speculation.

Personally, I don't care if you think she's a companion or not. I just care that you expect other people to accept it as fact when it's just speculation. DonQuixote (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's just "speculation" because this is something that has never happened before. The Doctor has never met a future companion one on one before, only to have them die, it's a paradox. Based on the evidence from Confidential episode "River Runs Deep" and the 2 episodes, she appears to have intimate knowledge of the Doctor and who he is and has future companion status. True, she never stepped in the TARDIS, but neither did Astrid. She cites examples of traveling with the Doctor. And if that isn't enough, those who question her morality and say she is lying should consider that she died to save the Doctor, and all the people trapped in the Library. She was a noble, brave, and adventurous character that cared enough for the Doctor to die to protect him. The future version of the 10th Doctor had enough foresight to give her his suped up sonic screwdriver that would save her and her friends as data ghosts. She knew he would be able to open the doors of the TARDIS with a snap of his fingers, something he didn't. She would say things he would, like "Snap!". If you look at what the story is, it makes sense, but is part of a paradox. Even though the Doctor lost her before he really knew her, he'll know her one day. Brilliant concept. He always knew she would die here, when he first met her. River Song is someone he will meet again in her younger years, in his older years, she will travel with the Doctor, she will have adventures with him. And if that isn't enough "adventure" for some, look at "Silence in the Library" & "Forest of the Dead" as their "First/Last adventure" together, which was 2 episodes unlike the 1 episode that earned Astrid her "companion" status. And look at the noble sacrifice River made for the Doctor, their future together from his point of view, and all those people in the Library. It's 100% more worthy of companion status that Adam. She sacrificed herself for the many, just like Astrid did. If that isn't worth enough to earn the title of "Companion", then I think the "Companion" status should be revised. The "Companion" image needs to be revised to add River Song after Astrid. MisterZeppo (talk • contribs) 20:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can see that the character River Song has had a significant effect on you but the truth is that Astrid and Adam have someting she lacks; an on-screen invitation to travel with the doctor or actual time in the tardis (on screen). There are plenty of characters that have died to save the Doctor that were never his companions and were not neccesarrily good people to begin with either. The bad-guy last-minute burst of compassion and morality is a theme that has been used more than once in DW. Arguing over whether we can believe River on a personal level is heading off into a realm of speculation fraught with problems. Who can vouch for River's honesty? does she have a character witness? She is a fictional charater that can change at the whim of a writer and it is not possible for anyone to know her personally. All we can say about the things she knows about the doctor is that she knows them. We have no idea how she got to know them because that has not been revealed to us on screen. The little book she had in her hands might have had absolutley everything in it, but it may not even have been hers. There is still too much room for doubt in River's story. Any creative person could come up with a fantastic story in which River is not who she says she is (and not necessarily a bad person either). What was said on screen is vague enough that there is still a huge ammount of "wriggle room" story-wise. There is simply not enough on-screen proof to accept that everything River says is true. As for things that are said in the DWC episodes, well I suspect RTD and moffat aren't exactly terribly worried about our wiki accuracy and sure as hell aren't going to give away future plots just so that we can nail down River's inclusion as a companion. Like many behind the scenes programs, they will only speculate as much as the episode allows. Notice how Moffat qualified many of the things he said with the word "Possibly"?. Do you think they would care about what they said 2 years down the track when they write a "River is Evil" episode? Do you really think Moffat would be sitting there saying "Well, I was going to make River an evil interloper but in an interview 2 years ago I suggested that possibly River was his wife...damn! Trapped by my own speculation!" I doubt it. Because anything that did not happen in an episode is open for change. Things said in a DWC episode are far from "locked in" and thus can only count as weak secondary evidence. As I said before, we need to see the Doctor invite or travel with River ON SCREEN before her status can be "locked in". Right now, all we have is the tantalising suggestion that she is to be a companion in the future, and a mere suggestion does not a companion make.--Qualal (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again - As "companion" is defined in this article, she completely qualifies. Everything you guys are talking about are not part of the way "companion" is defined in the article. If you want to redefine it, as a way of keeping River Song from fitting the definition, then you need to fight that battle and let those edits pass consensus first. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 14:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

She doesn't qualify based on the definition because you're jumping to the conclusion that she traveled with him. Nowhere in the dialogue is that stated. So based on that, it's speculation and not conclusive.

As for Confidential, as I've said, you can cite them if you like...but on the other hand Steven Moffat, who has a far greater influence on the character, says it's speculation.

So if you want to include River on this page, cite Confidential and cite Lyn (and cite Moffat too if the opposing viewpoint is appropriate), but don't point to the episode and say that it's conclusive based on the dialogue. DonQuixote (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You're taking Moffat's "speculation" comment completely out of context. He actually says:

"River Song is... someone who clearly plays a major role in the doctor's future, which we can only speculate about – well, you lot can only speculate about it – I know everything, obviously. " - Steven Moffatt (Doctor Who Confidential, Series 4, Episode 9)

As for "assumptions" and "proof" - I've made no assumptions. I've given you tons of sources, both here, and in the article. If there are too many sources, then go ahead and remove some. But her "qualifications" are undeniable. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 01:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Er...no. "You lot" means you, me, Wikipedia and everyone else not connected with the show. So...you're speculating! It's not out of context.

1) River mentions two events from her journal/diary. You're assuming that she and the Doctor traveled to those places. She could have just met him there -- like how she met him in the Library.

2) You're assuming that she and the Doctor had adventures during those two events. They could have just had a picnic or something.

3) You're assuming that she traveled in the TARDIS because she set foot in it to retrieve the squareness gun. Andred, Rodan and Borusa stepped foot in the TARDIS but it didn't move one smeggin' inch.

4) You're assuming that because River is a very important person to the Doctor that she's a companion. One does not necessarily mean the other. Jenny is a very important person, but she's not a companion (at least not yet).

So, based on these assumptions you're concluding that River is some future companion. But these are your assumptions. They're not necessarily true, and unless you can prove your assumptions to be correct, then you're conclusion that she's a future companion is no more valid than someone else's speculation that she's just someone the Doctor visits from time to time. DonQuixote (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Except I have the program dialogue and sources that confirm she's a "companion" by definition. No assumption or speculation is necessary to say she's a "companion". —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 15:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. You want concrete evidence. Proof. I can look at this unbiasedly. And the fact fo the matter is that Moffat and RTD never even hinted that she was evil. That's your own personal bias. You're assuming that she's not genuine. You're assuming I'm wrong. I think the best proof of all is the evidence & knowledge we have so far. This isn't conjecture. This is based on one simple and enourmous fact. River knows the Doctor's real name. And if that's good enough for the Doctor to believe in her, then that's enough for me. Beyond the fact that the intentions of ALL her actions in the 2 episodes does nothing to prove she isn't being geniune. Also everyone seems to ignore the fact that a future version of him gives her his screwdriver for the younger version to save her with. He rigged it for his younger self to save her with. That is TRUST. He knew this was going to happen because it is one of those "wibbly wobbly timey wimey" moments. A paradox. He wouldn't do that for an enemy, if she were an enemy her having his screwdriver would be wierd. The thing about River is that her character's introduction is 100% unique from any other character's in DW. She is a character from the future, who knows a future version of our Doctor, and did travel with him. And let's be honest here, knowing the Doctor like we do, he LOVES having brilliant people come with him in the TARDIS. She had to have gone with him. She even said that he took her to "The Singing Towers", they had a "picnic at Asgard", and "crash of the Byzantium". She had a book that looked like his TARDIS. And again, I cite her actions. She saved people. She acted like the Doctor. She cited examples that they travel together, most likely in his TARDIS. It's more than tantalising suggestion. There is fact beyond the suggestion. The rigged screwdriver. His name. You don't need an invite to become a companion. The first 2 companions beyond Susan Foreman were her teachers who pretty much broke into the TARDIS following her. You don't need to step inside the TARDIS to be a companion. Astrid was invited, but she never stepped in the TARDIS, yet she sacrificed herself for the Titanic, Earth, and the Doctor. Adam was a prat who doesn't even deserve the title of "Companion", but got it for being around to show us all what a Companion shouldn't be. But the simple fact that the future Doctor rigged the screwdriver which our younger Doctor uses to save her, told her his name, and cited examples of traveling to different locations with the Doctor does award her "Companion" status. 66.108.236.57 (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you've misunderstood me. I said this further down the page but I will repeat it here; I am not trying to prove River is evil. I am trying to point out that there are alternative explanations for how she got to the events we see in SitL and FotD. Explanations in which she is NOT a companion. There may be evidence pointing to River being a companion, but there is also considerable room for doubt because the on-screen evidence is vague and requires accepting only the word of the person in question and noone else. Thats like sitting in court and taking a suspected criminal's word for it when they say they didn't do it. You need corroborating evidence. I can understand that many feel that this corroborating evidence has been supplied in the DWC episodes, but we all know that the writers are not going to care one bit if they write an episode that contradicts what was said in DWC because its only what happens in an actual episode that is "locked in". --Qualal (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A companion: by definition, and with reliable sources

Once again, River Song is a "companion". Here's why:

River Song is named specifically using the word "companion":

• "The future is already written for both The Doctor and his adventurous companion to come" - Narration: Doctor Who Confidential, Series 4, Episode 9

River Song fits the definition of "Companion": ("A character who travels with and shares the adventures of the Doctor. .... Most companions travel in the TARDIS with the Doctor for more than one adventure, although there are exceptions.")

• "Going by your face, I'd say it's early days for you... Crash of the Byzantium, have we done that yet? .... Picnic at Asgard. Have we done Asgard yet?" - River Song (Silence in the Library / Forest of the Dead)
• "You took me to Derillium, to see the Singing Towers. Oh, what a night that was." - River Song (Silence in the Library / Forest of the Dead)
• "It's ok, it's not over for you. You'll see me again. You've got all of that to come. You and me, time and space, you watch us run." - River Song (Silence in the Library / Forest of the Dead)
• "Here's a woman who travels with the Doctor, therefore she knows him" - director Euros Lyn to Alex Kingston (Doctor Who Confidential, Series 4, Episode 9)

River Song has been in the TARDIS, and has specific knowledge of it:

• "The squareness gun ended up in the TARDIS" ... "it's the same squareness gun, it's Captain Jack's older one, pilfered from the Tardis locker by River Song" - Steven Moffatt (Doctor Who Confidential, Series 4, Episode 9)
• "The Doctor & The TARDIS. Next stop: everywhere" - River Song (Silence in the Library / Forest of the Dead)

River Song has first-hand experience seeing the Doctor defeating armies and/or monsters, on multiple occasions:

• "I've seen whole armies turn and run away and he'd just swagger off back to his TARDIS and open the doors with a snap of his fingers" - River Song (Silence in the Library / Forest of the Dead)
• "It's a tempting thing isn't it? I mean, there it is, there's you future, there's what's going to happen to you... There's a handy guide to how to win against the... the other monsters, you know? Of course you'd want to have a little look" - Steven Moffatt, referring to River Song's diary (Doctor Who Confidential, Series 4, Episode 9)

The following elements are NOT required within the definition of "companion", but are personal "requirements" of individual editors here, and thus not relevant.

• Actual time in the TARDIS (on screen)
• An on-screen invitation to travel with The Doctor
• Appearance in more than one episode

Can we please put this to rest now? —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 02:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding this official definition of a companion to which you are referring. The one that discounts all on-screen proof that someone travelled with the doctor and places higher importance on throw-away lines in DWC (that can and will be ignored by the writers when they sit down to write future episodes anyway). Where did you get it from?--Qualal (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? Um... try that little "article" tab in the upper left of this screen. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 06:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, pointing out that she was in several places at the same time as the doctor does not mean she travelled with him. She got to the library by herself and could easily have done so for all the other occasions. You don't actually know how she got to most of those places and writing it in bold type won't change that. In only one of your examples did she use the words "you took me to" and you cannot prove she was telling the truth in the first place. River did not need to be travelling with the doctor to see him snap his fingers to open the tardis (or any other of the things she claimed to have seen). Things said in DWC can be ignored and changed by the writers at any time, and to those disputing that River is evil, I'm not trying to prove that she will be evil in the future, I'm trying to point out that there are alternative explanations for how she came to be in SITL and FoTH. Ones where she is NOT a companion. While that possibility is still open you cannot say definitively that River is a companion.--Qualal (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You could easily throw out the Asgard & Byzantium bits, and you'd still have the fact that DWC calls her a "companion," that The Doctor took her to The Singing Towers, and that the director is quoted as saying that she has travelled with The Doctor. These are not "throw-away lines" simply because you don't like what they say. And per usual WP policy, voting does not equal consensus, and consensus is secondary in importance to verifiable sources anyway. If you want to develop a consensus to redefine "companion" in such a way that it negates River Song's status, then that's another issue in which consensus could come into play. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 06:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I call them throw away lines because you cannot dispute the fact that things said in DWC are open to contradiction by writers in later episodes. What is said in a DWC episode is not set in stone and thus cannot be accepted as definitive proof. I agree that a vote in itself is not consensus, but a majority vote on one side offers strong incentive for the opposing side to concede and that IS consensus. Please stop editing the wiki page to suit your own personal views when it is clear that many, possibly even a majority dissagree with you.--Qualal (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

River Song is named specifically using the word "companion": You can cite Confidential, but on the other hand Moffat has a higher authority and he says that to "you lot" (which means everyone but him) it's all speculation.

Crash of the Byzantium/Have we done Asgard: She could have just met the Doctor at these place, and it isn't necessarily the case that they had adventures there -- they could've just had a picnic.

You took me to Derillium: Finally you've got something (forgot about/missed this one). Out of all the other things which are rather vague, you've finally found a line that supports your claim. The Doctor took her to Derillium. The question now is was it as a companion or as a date? -- via the TARDIS or via a romantic boat ride?

You and me, time and space: Vague, can mean anything.

Euros Lyn: Again, you can cite him, but then again Moffat says that to everyone but himself it's all speculation.

pilfered from the Tardis locker by River Song: She may have set foot within the TARDIS, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she traveled in it. As I mentioned above, Andred, Rodan and Borusa set foot in the TARDIS but didn't travel in it.

I've seen whole armies turn and run away: So have Jackie Tyler, Harriet Jones, etc.

a handy guide to how to win against the... the other monsters: Davros also had a handy guide to win every major Dalek battle -- oh yeah, the Doctor told him about them.

So what have we got? Finally we have one line that supports your claim that she traveled with the Doctor. We have one quote by Confidential and one quote by Lyn saying that she's a companion. We also ahve one quote by Moffat that to "you lot", that is to everyone but himself, it's all speculation. DonQuixote (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, some interesting points... I could nitpick why you're wrong on a few of them, but at this point it just comes down to the fact that there's still more than enough to support that she "travelled with" the Doctor and that she was named as "companion". —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 14:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with that. One line and two quotes don't make much of an argument, especially considering that Moffat (creator of the character, writer of the story and future producer of the show) says that it's just speculation with regards to everyone but him. DonQuixote (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's plenty to establish that she fits under the definition, whether you agree with it or not. And Moffatt's "speculation" comment doesn't negate the fact that dialogue tells us she travelled with the Doctor, and that she's named as a "companion" in an official program. And because Moffat wrote the episode, everything that's in the program is what he "knows" - and it's there for us to perceive. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Vote on River Song as a companion

I think we really need to find out what the consensus is here before we start making major changes to the page to include River. I motion that we each add a single sentence here to say whether we are for or against River being a companion. The option with the most registered users will be accepted as consensus. In the event of a draw, unregistered users will be counted as a tie breaker.

one vote, River is NOT a companion based on the current evidence as of 24-06-2008. --Qualal (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Not enough evidence and even Moffat says that it's all speculation. DonQuixote (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 14:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OMG shubop, are you seriously claiming that this topic has not been discussed? "Substituting" discussion implies there wasn't any. We have all earned serious nerd points discussing this topic to death and I swear every point has been made at least 5 times over. Even if consensus is not reached at very least a vote may achieve a truce of some kind.--Qualal (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This would be more effective as a summary of editors' previously-stated positions above. In that case, it appears that consensus is in favor, unless I'm miscounting, 4 to 3. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 14:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to count those on the Doctor Who project talk page. There's about 4 there that oppose. DonQuixote (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors there suggested that the discussion move here. Those not participating in such a discussion are not part of the consensus. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 15:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

When they refer to things like WP:CRYSTAL, then they're opposing it. DonQuixote (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if they're not part of this discussion.—Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 15:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "this" discussion as in "River Song should/shouldn't be considered a companion" or "this" discussion as in the "discussion on this page". If it's the former, then they are part of this discussion since they made their views clear (WP:CRYSTAL means no speculations about the future). If it's the latter, then (I'm sorry to say) you're just being narrow to propel your agenda.

Anyone who's made their views known on the subject, whether they be editors of this page, members of the Doctor Who Wipedia Project, members of Wikipedia, etc., are part of the discussion (particularly if they told you why they support/oppose it). Please respect their views. DonQuixote (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. Look, at this point my "agenda" is simply to have a reasonable method of establishing consensus, and one that's within WP policy. Clearly, a substantial amount of evidence has been presented, and a huge amount of discussion has taken place here – outside of the very brief discussion that took place there – and the editors you're referring to haven't participated, or even commented, here since their comments there nearly a week ago, nor indicated in any way if they are aware of what has been presented here, nor have they made edits to this article in recent days. If editors haven't kept up with it since then, I don't think it's reasonable to consider them part of this discussion. Consensus is also built upon edits to the article, and obviously, you're free to invite any editor to this discussion if they're willing to read and consider what has been presented and give their informed view, with arguments supporting their view (rather than a simple "vote"). Consensus can always change of course, but at the moment, the consensus is that the section on River remains in the article. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 14:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa...back up a minute. When did you jump from "River is a companion" to "River should, at least, be mentioned"? Personally, I don't mind the latter -- I'm just cautious of the first because it's not an absolute fact. In fact, I didn't mind that new section when it was inserted -- although, reading it now, it could use a little copyediting for accuracy. Again, I'm just against stating that "River is a companion -- fact" because at this point it's just speculation. The other editors also didn't like the "fact" part because of WP:CRYSTAL. I don't know what they think about mentioning her at least.

Also, this section is about voting/polling for "River Song as a companion" and not "let's at least mention River Song", and that's what I took as the basis of this discussion. If I misinterpreted your words because of this, I apologise. DonQuixote (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I still stand by the contention that she "is a companion" rather than "should just be mentioned", so my position hasn't changed. However, as River is a unique case, of course she requires a lot of explanation with her mention in the article - it's a really confusing situation for even the nerdiest of us who pretend to understand the intricacies of time travel :) I'm still not 100% happy with every detail of the way it's worded, but if we're at a point where we're collaborating on the same piece of text and it's down to the small details (such as "may travel" vs. "will travel" vs. "stated that she has travelled"), then by all means, let's move forward with that, and cease the bickering here, unless someone has something new to add, or if we need to discuss one of those details. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 21:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Then, in terms of "is a companion", the editors who touched upon the topic on the Doctor Who Wikipedia Project talk page have opposed it based on it being speculation and WP:CRYSTAL, so please don't ignore their views on "is a companion". As to "should be mentioned", as far as I know they haven't said a thing.

As to "may travel" vs "will travel", "will travel" is speculation because it hasn't been established as a fact yet, whilst "may travel" acknowledges the fact that it hasn't been established as a fact yet. DonQuixote (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The WP:FUTURE policy which you and other editors in a separate discussion have cited is about predicting future events, such as elections, Olympics, etc... things that happen in the real world. We're dealing with a fictionally-defined timeline of a fictional universe, that frequently deals with "the future" as it is a time-travel series. Saying that River Song "is a companion in The Doctor's future" has nothing do with predicting real-world events. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 17:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As it has been pointed out, there's not enough evidence "in-universe" to back up the claim that she's a future companion (one line that's rather vague). If it is clearly stated in the episode that she's a future companion, then you're right in saying that real-world events have no bearing on that. However, as there is not enough "in-universe" information, extrapolating any sort of conclusion is speculating. What the other editors are saying, based on this, is that since it's not explicitly stated on screen, we can't conclude anything until future episodes explicitly state that she's a companion -- in other words, it's both speculation in the fictional universe and speculation in the real world. When it comes to the real world, it falls under WP:FUTURE. DonQuixote (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at, and though I respect your cautious approach and perspective, I still disagree with your assessment, and contend that sufficient, verifiable, official sources have been given that define it as being part of the fictional universe, and that no speculation about real-world events is necessary to conclude that she can be (and is) called a "companion," fits the description defined in the article of a "companion" and that it is entirely evident that it is part of the fictional timeline that she "will be" in such a relationship with The Doctor "in his future". And as for those sources, what I said before about the editors on the wikiproject page not participating here applies primarily to the fact that they haven't commented on the validity of those sources at that point, as they had not yet been presented in that context. As for verb tenses... I can't help but laugh about all the back-and-forth about that... what are the rules for grammar when you're talking about something happening between two people, in the past of one, and the future of another? lol. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 18:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Like I've mentioned, a lot of the things mentioned in the episode can imply that she's a companion but they don't necessarily imply that she is (she could be someone the Doctor meets from time to time, as one example). Personally, I would love it if she became a companion (it would be great if Moffat did this as his first act as head guy), but that doesn't change the fact that it's still vague and speculative at this point in time. Even Moffat mentions that it's all speculation (for everyone but him, that is). For all we know, he could plan for her to just be a frequent guest character who calls the Doctor from time to time using his psychic paper, etc. All the information in the episode supports that conclusion as well. Because of this, the info is vague and not concrete. Actually, come to think of it, if the latter were to happen, she could probably be listed under "Disputed companions" like the Brigadier or Sgt Benton. Ack...but I'm starting to speculate.

As for the other editors, they think that the info in the episode isn't enough to confirm her as a companion, so mentioning anything is speculation. As to Confidential and Lyn vs Moffat...well, they haven't commented on it so we don't know if they've followed the discussion or not.

As for verb tense, she said "You took me to Derillium", which is "she stated that she had travelled" which in turn becomes "she states that she has travelled" because she's a fictional character. Of course, "took me to" can mean anything since we don't know what "Derillium" is -- it's possible that it's a planet, but it's possible that it could be a concert hall or a mesa or whatever. We can speculate that since the Doctor took Rose, Martha and Donna to different planets to see their wonders that he'll do the same thing with River. But then again, that's speculating. DonQuixote (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I disagree with you. There's plenty here to be able to confidently say she fits the definition of "companion" despite the fact that she was specifically called that in Confidential!! It's obvious you simply refuse to accept that point no matter what I say :) As for Moffatt's quote, just to clarify, he doesn't say "it's all speculation" - he says specifically that, about The Doctor's future, "you lot" (speaking to the audience) "can only speculate" but that he "knows everything, obviously" - and since he wrote the episode that reveals everything about River Song that has yet to be revealed, we have that much to go by. Forget implications. She has travelled / will travel / travels with the Doctor, and she's named as a "companion". You don't need implications to be able to use the word "companion" when talking about her. Of course we can't say she's a "current companion" because of course she's not, and we can't say that she "will be a companion in upcoming episodes" because that would be a "crystal ball" specualtion. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 22:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you can prove that there's enough information in the episode, as other people don't think there is, then you have made your case and she should be listed as a companion. As to Moffat, "you all" refers to you, me and Wikipedia. Unless Moffat himself edits this article, anything that we write is speculation. That's the point. You writing that River is a companion is speculation vs Moffat writing about River being whatever (companion, etc.) is not speculation. DonQuixote (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I have done so. And that's a ridiculous interpretation of Moffat's quote. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 14:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm....no....and no.

One, what you think is very different from what you can prove. You haven't proven anything other than the producers of Confidential think that she's a companion and that Lyn thinks that she's a companion -- which, as you say, is not within the fictional universe. Other than that, the "proof" that you provided (the ones from the fictional universe) is rather vague and can support anything. If the episode were as clear as you think it was, the other editors probably wouldn't be whinging about WP:FUTURE and things related to it.

Two, are you really that thick? It's not a "ridiculous" interpretation -- it's the literal interpretation. Moffat said, "Well, you lot can only speculate about it. I know everything, obviously." That "you lot" includes you. You, the person I'm responding to, can only speculate according to Moffat -- the writer of the story, the creator of the character and future producer of the show! Again, according to Moffat, only he knows the truth and the only thing that you (or anyone else) can do is speculate! He couldn't be any clearer in his intentions. DonQuixote (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You know what, this is like the fourth or fifth time that I had to explain Moffat's simple statement to you, so I'm just going to walk away from this discussion -- WP:HORSEMEAT. DonQuixote (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally. Funny… I was about to cite the "beating a dead horse" policy in my last post, but at the last minute I decided not to. You're still missing the fact that everything we have in the episode, from which most of the cited sources derive, is from what Moffat "knows". He wrote it. There's no need to speculate. That's why I say it's "ridiculous". Like you said, the Confidential producers and the episode director "think" she's a companion, and have called her that. I fail to see why this alone isn't enough, and you somehow don't value their "opinion". And what's in the fictional universe is the only thing that matters here, because that is everything we're talking about. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 05:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To sum up: River is called a "companion": check. She meets the definition of "companion": check. Sources cited for the above: check. Objections by DonQuixote noted: check.

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, DonQuixote, but it really all comes down to that. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 05:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

'Sigh' is there nothing we agree on? ;-).--Qualal (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying that consensus is supposed to be established within the discussion, rather than by "voting" - i suppose i should have quoted that part of the policy i was citing. I understand what you're after - an end (me too). But let's not skirt around WP policy to get there. I'm just saying that, if anything, rather than taking a vote, we should summarize the positions of editors from the discussion instead. I'm exhausted of this too, and agree that everything we could possibly discuss has been discussed "ad nauseum"! (a phrase which also describes the feeling in my stomach when I think of the prospect of wasting more time on this discussion) :) I don't see how there could possibly be anything else I (or anyone) could add to this discussion that I haven't already. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 21:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to override you on this one, but your theory as it stands is completely original research; you scrap together any quote to back up your opinion, but by doing so ignore every other argument. Let me repeat what I said earlier: a companion must have travaled with the Doctor on-screen. Every quote you provide is speculation, as none of the stated event have actually happened in the Doctor's time line. No matter how important these future events may be, they still only represent a possible future. I have no qualm with having a note on her status in the article, but bluntly stating that River is a companion is simply not verifiable. — Edokter • Talk • 19:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, your requirement for on-screen travel is NOT part of the definition of "companion". That is your own personal requirement. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 20:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Going over what is said here, I would have to agree with her being counted as a companion. Just because she hasn't appeared as a companion in an episode it's clearly implied she's a companion in the future. If Sarah Jane is listed here as a companion of the Tenth Doctor than there's no reason she shouldn't be also. Kuralyov (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Series 4 companions are listed as such by the BBC [[1]] Edgepedia (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The 'archive' covers Series 1 to 3, and has a 'Meet the TARDIS crew' page at [[2]] Edgepedia (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputed companions section

Two observations. First, obviously River Song is a "disputed companion". So would it kill us to put her under that section and be done with it? Also, you might be interested to know this whole argument is being poked fun at at the Doctor Who Forum. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what you consider "disputed". Three users who disagree despite her being called a "companion" in an official program, and that she fits the article's definition entirely, from my point of view does not make her a "disputed companion".

She is, however, a unique case, as we've never had a "companion from the future of the Doctor's personal timeline" before, so she doesn't really fit into any existing category of the article. That's why I think the way she's listed now is appropriate. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 16:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say, Shubop, that the fact that we've spent a month arguing this pretty much gives itself to River Song being a disputed companion. To me, it seems we've totally missed an important point here. It is speculation that she is a future companion. It is speculation that Captain Jack is the Face of Boe. While this is already mentioned on both Jack and the Face's articles, we do not list Boe as a companion as well. Logically, if Jack is a companion, and he and Jack are the same, then they are both companions. However, we do not know this to be true. It is hinted at, but is not true... yet. River Song's companion status is hinted at, but is not true... yet. The disputed companion section, as mentioned above by the anon, is the best place for her. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 05:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be speculation to say, in this article, that the character will show up in future episodes and travel with the Doctor on-screen. I don't think anybody is questioning that. But that's not what we're talking about here. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 20:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. She is not an onscreen companion yet, and we do not know if, or when, she will be. The evidence sure seems to point to it, but WP:CRYSTALBALL, anyone? Clearly, as the past month of this talk page has shown, her status is disputed. Therefore, the disputed companions section is the best place for her. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 03:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, whether or not she is an "onscreen companion" is not the point. What we've been discussing here is whether or not she fits in the "companion" category. Those are two entirely separate issues. Clearly we can't predict the real-world future (ie. appearances in television episodes) but in the context of this particular fictional universe that takes place all over time and space, "the future" is a matter of "fact." —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 15:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that River Song should be considered an "official" companion yet because she did "die", possibly alternating her timeline with the Doctor. I think we should wait until we see her again on Doctor Who before considering about adding her to the "Companions" list.

Sarah Jane / Repeat appearances by past companions

Another editor recently added Sarah Jane as a companion in the 10th Doctor's chart. Is there a consistent approach to how we handle these repeat appearances by characters who have already been given "companion" status based on their past (Series Past) roles? If we see Captain Jack, Mickey Smith, etc again in Season 4, and they don't travel somewhere with the Doctor, should they still be listed that way? If so, then shouldn't Sarah Jane be listed there after all? I'm not really sure where I stand on this myself... curious to hear others' opinions. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 19:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on precedent, that is, the Brigadier is not considered a companion of the Second Doctor (The Five Doctors) or the Fifth Doctor (Mawdryn Undead) or the Seventh Doctor (Battlefield), Sarah probably isn't a companion of the Tenth (School Reunion). Also, we can limit our scope to "current companion" in the same way we limit our scope to "current Doctor" (The Three Doctors, The Five Doctors, The Two Doctors, Time Crash). That's the producers' position thus far.

As to Series 4, until the episodes air, we don't know if Jack, Mickey, etc. play a major part in the story or if they're just making cameos. DonQuixote (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. But, hypothetically, let's say Adam Mitchell shows up (assuming he isn't Davros, what with that hole on his head and all, but I digress) in next week's episode. He's listed as a "companion" in the 9th Doctor chart. He would have to travel on-screen to warrant a listing as a "companion" in the 10th Doctor's chart, right? Or does he automatically get listed in the chart if he simply shows up again? —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 14:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't even want to touch that debate. Aside from the fact that, when it comes to Adam, I'm rather biased, the whole "current companion" thing is too wibbly-wobbly for me. I'm just going to leave that up to everyone else, particularly the production team. DonQuixote (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I wasn't talking about the "current companion" bit... I'm also not getting into that edit-war :) I was just talking about the charts that show the companions of each Doctor, and wanted to figure out what the rule is so I can be consistent. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 22:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

InfoBox

The use of <imagemap> seems warranted and most useful here versus having a visitor count rows and columns to manually place a name with a face.

WurmWoode^T 00:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

River Song (2)

I couldn't edit the above section, so I'm afraid I've created a new one.

I've come here because there's a dispute on the River Song page as to her status as a companion. I was directed here, and I see that it hasn't been resolved.

I expressed by view on the talk page, which I'll repeat here:

Doctor who is a (or many) works of fiction. To date, the character of River Song has appeared in only two episodes. I think it is highly likely that she is going to appear again, but for how long and the story is not at the moment known. As I said in the revert, 'Anything can happen in Doctor Who and be explained by a line of dialogue', so we do not need to have the same actors for the same character to appear - I'm sure that you don't have to be a timelord to be able to change your appearance! Because of this, I think we need to be very clear not to read too much into where the BBC are going to take this story line. The character of River Song clearly knew the Doctor very well in his future, but she has not yet appeared as a companion in any episodes.

Simply put, all we have what we see on the epsiodes. We have not seen River Song in the role of companion. Whilst in the episodes in Series 2 it was strongly suggested that River Song (by the character River Song) was a future companion, there are other possibities for the events. Therefore anything else is speculation.

Edgepedia (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Highly likely" is something we absolutely cannot work with on Wikipedia. We list companions that are or have been traveling with the doctor, not that are highly likely to be... We can only include here when we actually have seen her as a companion on screen. — Edokter • Talk • 06:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "highly likely" is not good enough. But River Song is explicitly stated, and accepted, to "have traveled" with the Doctor. As for your "on screen" requirement, once again, if you want that to be part of the definition of "companion" then you need to add it to the definition in the article and let it pass consensus. As it stands, it's not a requirement. A companion in this context is a fictional entity, not a function of televised screen time. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 21:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a summary of your arguments here Shadang. I shall try and be concise in the reply, although I am just repeating what has already been said.

On screen requirement - This is a real world encyclopedia covering a work of fiction. In Doctor Who the companion is a dramatic device which allows plot development in an episode, allows the character of the Doctor to quickly explain things for the benefit of the audience and provides someone with which the audience can relate. Looking at the guidelines for reporting on fiction, we need to very careful to describe from a real world point of view, and as a piece of fiction. This is were this requirement is coming from ... without an episode where a character is a companion we do not really have anything to talk about. The BBC website lists the companions for Series 4.

However, looking at from a 'in universe' point of view', during the two episodes River Song says she has travelled with the Doctor. If she appears again, there are a number of ways this continuity can be referenced. She could be his sister. She could have been lying, in a ruse to gain his trust (She was very keen to gain this trust). She could be Jenny. The events in Journey's End could have re-written future history, so she is never born. We need to leave plot development to the BBC. Edgepedia (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else note the Doctor-Master-Professor connection? Now that's speculation! Edgepedia (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As we have the article at River Song, I'm thinking that the entry here about her is rather long. I guess this may be a little contriversal, so I'll suggest it here first. How about:

Main article: River Song (Doctor Who)

River Song is an archaeologist who states that she has travelled with the Doctor in his relative future, her relative past. Although the Doctor first meets her on the Library planet in "Silence in the Library", she states that she has met him on several occasions prior to that in her relative timeline but in a time yet to come for the Doctor. It is suggested that at some point they share an intimate relationship of some sort, and River Song reveals that she knows the Doctor's real name, which she whispers in his ear, thus gaining his trust. River Song appears to be familiar with the TARDIS, and apparently has first-hand knowledge of The Doctor's future conflicts with alien races. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgepedia (talk • contribs) 21:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

She hasn't been the companion in a real-world sense. We can say Billie Piper played Rose for 2 series and in series 4, we cannot say Alex Kingston was a companion for a particular episode or duration of time. What we have is something which is an important character in-universe but currently lacks any real importance in the real world (as recognised by Wikipedia).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Age business too trivial?

I just noticed the bit under "Miscellaneous notes" (which itself is highly questionable, per WP:TRIVIA) that lists the cases in which the actor playing the companion was older than the actor playing the Doctor. That seems way too trivial to me — I'm inclined to remove it, but didn't want to do so without discussion. So... discussion? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's too trivial. DonQuixote (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Right — it's gone. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it true...

...that some of the women who were Companions on Dr. Who posed for nude photos? (Before, during or after their roles on the show?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 01:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Katy Manning posed nude with some Daleks. That's about it. DonQuixote (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

She wasn't completely naked. Kylie did a simpliar thing in a poster for her episode. 86.131.239.18 (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't related to the article, please use a fansite forum for these kind of conversations. Jammy (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Non-free imagemaps

Under which circumstances (if any) is it acceptable to use non-free images in an imagemap as a navigational aid?

Background

Background information as to why Papa November has raised this can be found here. Edgepedia (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of extra information earlier. Image:Companions EP vinyl cover.jpg was deleted following an IFD debate. The debate raised several important areas of contention regarding the non-free content policy, and ended with only a very weak consensus to delete the image despite passionate support from both sides. This request for comment aims to clarify some of the "grey areas" in the policy.

Description of image

• 5×8 array (including two blank spaces) of tightly cropped thumbnails
• Each thumbnail contained the face of a different Doctor Who "companions". Each companion was portrayed once and only once in the array.
• The image was used in only one location (Companion (Doctor Who)), where it appeared in the top-right "infobox" spot
• An imagemap was created over the top of the image, linking each thumbnail to an article about the companion it portrayed

Specific policy questions

Several points about the non-free use policy were highlighted in the debate. Specific questions, which were left without a firm answer are as follows:

1. WP:NFC states "The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8)." but under what circumstances (if any) can non-free images be used as part of a navigational aid?
2. WP:NFC states "An image with an unknown or unverifiable origin." is unacceptable use of non-free content, but how specific must the citations be for TV screenshots? Do we need to know the exact episode or is it good enough to just state the name of the TV show and its production company?
3. There is very little guidance about derivatives of non-free content. Are collages included in the guideline of question 1, or are they treated differently? Are they permitted at all?
4. What sort of copyright tag should be used for derivatives of non-free work? Is there even an appropriate tag for such images? What are the requirements for citation of the source images? Is a {{non-free television screenshot}} tag required for every source image? Can a blanket fair use rationale be provided for all of the source images, or must a specific rationale be provided for each individual image? Is an additional fair use rationale required for the derivative work?
5. WP:NFC states that It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in [a list article] Does this also apply to non-list articles which cover a large number of fictional characters?
6. WP:NFC states For media that involves live actors, do not supply an image of the actor in their role if an appropriate free image of the actor exists on their page (as per WP:BLP and above), if there is little difference in appearance between actor and role. However, if there is a significant difference due to age or makeup and costuming, then, when needed, it may be appropriate to include a non-free image to demonstrate the role of the actor in that media. Does this mean explicitly that non-free headshots of characters are forbidden if they are indistinguishable from that of the actor when out of character?
7. What constitutes "minimal use" of a non-free image? Answers in the debate ranged from "never" to "once in every related article"

If we can agree on even one of these points, it'll be a massive boost to the project. Papa November (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Re points (3) and (4), this is addressed by Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles #1. "[montages] should be provided by the copyright holder or scanned/captured directly from the copyrighted work, instead of being created from multiple non-free images by the user directly". If we do as the guideline suggests, and not permit user created montages, we answer (4) for this case.
• Proponents of the image felt this montage was permissible due to a cast photo for all companions not being available. The issue then isn't the montage; the issue then goes to point (7) above and what constitutes minimal use, not any issue to do with a montage. Proponents of the image felt that one image per character was acceptable, but Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles speaks to that and common practice limits usage away from per-character images.
• Point #5 has been debated in other forums and it's been shown before that whether an article is a list or not is really beside the point. The central issue is the quantity of fair use images _needed_ for an article, regardless of type of article. No person in the debate was able to show a legitimate use of three dozen or more fair use images.
• Re point #2, staying the copyright holder is not enough, as shown at Wikipedia:IUP#Requirements point #2. I grant this is unclear, since later in the same policy it states "Source: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from". I seriously doubt this is the intended definition of this policy. Else, anyone could reference a published book and never state the actual book where it came from, but instead just state "Source: Houghton Mifflin" and be done with it. There are 172 thousand new titles published in the U.S. per year alone[3]. Noting a major publisher as the source isn't sufficient. Neither is noting the BBC, which produces a huge amount of copyrighted work per year. Even knowing it's from the Dr. Who series isn't enough. There's more than 200 episodes. WP:IUP does state "For screenshots this means what the image is a screenshot of (the more detail the better)". I agree.
• Re point #1, I'm not aware of any use of fair use content in any navigational aid on the project. Such use used to exist, prior to templates being gutted of fair use images, but not anymore. I'm hard pressed to understand how fair use content is irreplaceable in a navigational aid. We've got zillions of navigational templates that still function perfectly well without fair use content. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I recall this issue came up some time ago with regard to the use of the Scientology symbol in a navigational template. We were advised by Brad Patrick, the Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel at the time, that the use of non-free content in templates would not be fair use. The legal position, as I understand it, is that a non-free image has to be the subject of commentary in the document in which it is used if a fair use claim is to be sustained. Obviously a template does not have any commentary. A template may be used to accompany commentary, but that doesn't satisfy the fair use criteria. (I suppose it might be different if the template was actually embedded in an article - i.e. if it was not a separate object in the template namespace - but that would be a messy solution.) In the end a free image was found to symbolise the subject in the template. I presume the legal position hasn't changed since Brad's advice a year or so ago, so I would suggest a similar approach in this case. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The image wasn't a template, but an image with an overlaid imagemap. I don't know whether that affects the legal position or not, but I'd think that if the images are placed in an article which contains critical commentary, it wouldn't matter for copyright purposes if it also served a navigational function. The decision at the IFD was that this particular image didn't meet the critical commentary standard, but I can imagine a case in which an image with linked imagemap would.

Incidentally, I agree that under best practice "copyright BBC" and "source: promotional photograph from Doctor Who" isn't good enough for a collection of images from different periods. But I think that's a fairly minor issue (a case for "improve the sourcing for this image", not "delete this image"). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to get the BBC's permission (though I'm not so sure how to go about that and less sure how to prove it for Wikipedia's purposes!). Cuddlyopedia (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that dealings with an organization as large and influential as the BBC on issues of copyright are best dealt with at the Foundation level. The BBC isn't going to release the copyright on a few Doctor Who publicity photos because a random Wikipedia editor asks them to. Copyright of BBC content is probably covered by the BBC Charter, interpretation of which is the responsibility of very high-up folks in the BBC. IANAL, but it's entirely possible that the BBC wouldn't be legally able to release copyrighted content into copyleft without an amendment to the Charter, which I think takes an Act of Parliament. In short, while the idea of the BBC releasing images for free use is a lovely one, I don't think it's within our reach or terribly relevant to the discussion at hand. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The likely response is that we can use fair use images, and any further release is not required. Edgepedia (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Question Point #6 where a free use image of an actor to identify a character is suggested. I haven't been able to find any examples of this happening. Perhaps I haven't tried hard enough. Anyone help? Edgepedia (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding "others" to the tables

Can we add a "disputed companions" or "friendly recurring characters" or some other column title along those lines to the tables, to make it easier for people who are looking up particular "friends" of the Doctor who don't happen to care what the exact definition of "companion" is? The tables should be informative, not proscriptive. 71.242.202.228 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely List of Doctor Who supporting characters is the main article, and this one discusses the evolution of the companions. Edgepedia (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)