Forum:Disputed Companions

Many "disputed companions" from List of companions appear in the companion template for their relevant Doctor, but at least some (such as Lynda Moss) do not. This should probably be made consistent, but I don't want to go searching through all of them to fix it until I know which way to fix it. --Falcotron 05:14, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm an idiot; Lynda Moss is in the template. Never mind. --Falcotron 05:17, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

If they're disputed, why should they be in the template? That should be for just undisputed companions. After all, you could argue anyone is a companion. --Golden Monkey 05:48, May 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * No, there is a line--maybe a bit fuzzy, but definitely there--between disputed companions and non-companions, just as there's a line between disputed companions and undisputed companions.


 * I don't know who created these templates, but I think it's right to include them. If I'm looking at Astrid Peth, having a template that can link me to not only Rose but also Jackson Lake makes sense.


 * The Tenth Doctor, who has a lot more disputed companions than any other, has a special "see also" section for The Viewer and Rosita in his template, with no discussion as to why they're "more disputed" than the others. I suppose this could be taken farther, adding sections for disputed companions in each template. But that would get pretty messy. --Falcotron 06:59, May 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree with Golden Monkey here. The templates should be clean and simple.  To me, companion status has nothing to do with whether they "traveled in the TARDIS" or whether they were "invited by the Doctor", but rather whether the production team (of whatever medium) actually intended them to be considered a companion.  At the end of the day, "companion" means co-star.  Yes, that's out-of-universe, but in this one contentious case, it's the simplest and most straightforward way to go.  Just like we sometimes go to the end credits to actually discover a character's name (or at least the spelling of it), we can here allow ourselves to develop a policy which takes into account whether the production team actually meant for the person to be considered a full co-star or merely a guest star.  Otherwise you get into all kinds of rabbit holes.  Why Lynda Moss, but not Ray?  Why Meera Syal's character from The Hungry Earth but not H. G. Wells from Timelash?  Why Lethbridge-Stewart but not Bamberra?  The reason that the Brig is the only one of these characters to be a companion is solely because, at the end of the day, Nicholas Courtney' at one point had a season-long contract.


 * The reason we hem and haw over companion status is that there is no DWU definition. And our endless attempts to find one are always going to be frustrated.  From a DWU perspective, from the Doctor's perspective, several of the people we consider to be companions he wouldn't describe so familiarly anyway.  Why do you think the Doctor's not so bothered by Dodo's disappearance in The War Machines, but obviously is distraught when he thinks Steven has left in The Massacre?  Would he really think of Susan as his companion?  No, she's his granddaughter.  Big difference.  Why does Rose balk at being called an assistant, but others don't?  The reason is that companion isn't really a universal description.  We're being out-of-universe already in using it.  So why not just go "all in" and come up with an honest litmus test instead of continuing to have this endless, pointless debate that's been smoldering since 2005?


 * I say, end the debate, take the arbitrary (but reasonable) stance that, excluding the Master, satisfying any two of these conditions qualifies them for companion status:


 * Their actor's names were above the titles
 * They were formally introduced by a press release from the BBC/DWM/Virgin/Big Finish/IDW as a companion/assistant/co-star
 * They were in more than one story (not episode or part, but full story)


 * Satisfying two of these three conditions should allow in everyone who's a legitimate co-star, and exclude everyone who's iffy.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  08:53, May 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree completely that, because there is no in-universe definition, we have to come up with our own. And I agree that we should come up with something arbitrary but reasonable and stick to it. And you seem to be implying that scrapping "disputed companion" is a good idea; if so, I think I agree--as I said, it's much easier to draw one line than to draw two.


 * But as for your specific suggestion, I don't think it works, for multiple reasons:
 * In the classic series, no names appeared above the titles.
 * In all media other than TV, there are no titles for actor names to appear above.
 * I'm not sure if, in the early years of the classic series, they issued press releases about new companions.
 * Some other media don't often issue press releases announcing new companions. For example, I don't think most DWM companions were ever introduced this way.
 * For the RTD era, uniquely, the BBC has an actual list of Companions (as opposed to "Friends & Allies") on their website . Notice that they don't include Wilf, even though he'd qualify according to your criteria.


 * So, really, this only works for Moffat-era TV companions. And, even there, the press releases about River Song are ambiguous about whether she's a companion. --Falcotron 09:34, May 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, looking through the "classic series" site, the only people the BBC lists unambiguously as companions are: Katarina, Adric, Peri (all in the list of dead companions from the "Jog your memory" section of the Episode Guide); Susan, Sarah Jane, K9 (I and II), "UNIT", and Rose (in the "Beginner's Guide"); and Susan, Barbara, Ian, Romana I, Romana II, K9, Leela, Peri, Ace, and Rose (in the Picture Galleries). So, unlike the RTD era, that's not very useful. --Falcotron 09:42, May 23, 2010 (UTC)