Template talk:Eleventh Doctor companions

River Song

River does not have to appear. There need not be some master plan that has gone wrong with the Tenth Doctor's regeneration. Her adventures can just be left of screen. Unless there is a source for her, she should not be included. 86.131.237.120 (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Alex Kingston was among the actors on location during the first day of shooting yesterday, as reported by many British media. But this is not a proof that River Song is a companion, I agree. Hektor (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A Digital Spy article said that she'll just be in it for two episodes, making it likely she's just a guest star, not a companion. --76.210.65.167 (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Time will tell. Anyway you can be companion for just one episode, see Lady Christina for instance. Hektor (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, it seems that River will end up being in four episodes this season. Can we consider her a companion now? – Pee Jay 08:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Pond

Do we have a source that says she's in all the episodes (as indicated by the template)? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rory

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please keep discussion centralised at Talk:The_Vampires_of_Venice#Rory_.3D_companion_.3F. ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 13:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for including him here from Vampires, at least for two episodes. The Eleventh Doctor's page is listing him as a companion there Tphi (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tphi. The discussion about the companion status for Rory can be found at Talk:The Vampires of Venice#Rory = companion ?. At the moment we have no reliable source saying that he's a companion and without one saying that he is is orginial research. If you have such a reliable source could you add a link there? Edgepedia (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, will look there Tphi (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Vampires of Venice#Rory = companion ? is getting a bit cluttered. He's now appeared for three episodes constantly and is certainly a de facto companion. What would one say counts as a 'reliable source' (other than the fictional universe)? I'm pro-Rory-inclusion too. Pookiyama (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a complete lack of any secondary source (i.e. a reliable newspaper) or the BBC itself ever calling him a companion. Which is annoying, because while I think he obviously *is* a companion, its not currently provable. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said, on the official website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw - if you mouse over the section 'Characters' it states 'Read all about the Doctor and his companions' - if you click on it it then leads to information upon The Doctor, Amy, Churchill, River Song and Rory. This seems to me to be the equivalent of the companions tab on the prior site which was accepted as evidence for the BBC regarding somewhat contentious figures such as Lady Christina. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Churchill"? Really? TFOWR^propaganda 09:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the site says. Personally I would favour a much stricter definition of Companion, but that would be Original Research. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, anywhere, suggests that Churchill is a companion. ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 12:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Sullivan's website, A brief History of Time (Travel) which has been extensively accepted as a reference throughout wikipedia pages on Doctor Who has also listed Rory as a companion. See http://www.shannonsullivan.com/drwho/11doc.html AlexanderJBateman (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That website is not a reliable source. ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 12:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussion centralised at Talk:The_Vampires_of_Venice#Rory_.3D_companion_.3F. ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 13:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rory/Auton Rory

So, Rory has reappeared as of "The Pandorica Opens"... Or has he? It's not really him, just a particularly sophisticated Auton. But does that mean we can add him as a companion for the season finale? – Pee Jay 08:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably too early to tell. Hopefully the Big Bang will bring some answers on the subject :) Tphi (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fez

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think that the Doctor's fez should be given a space under The Big Bang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.166.108 (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 18:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a hilarious suggestion! Anemone Projectors 10:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, quite. I'm ecstatic about the entire incident. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 21:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fez thing is old! I've had enough of constantly reverting vandals on the fez article--Lerdthenerd (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the thought of the fez as the Doctor's companion that amuses me! Anemone Projectors 00:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable source and it'll be there :) Tphi (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inanimate objects as companions? what madness is this? whats it going to be next, err a banana?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need to create Fez (Doctor Who) ;-) Anemone Projectors 15:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it was a deliberatly foolish suggestion which has been 'discussed' enough. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 16:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citing appearances

Since when do we cite appearances inline in navboxes?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do we not? ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also here – ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 17:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is future information (Rory's appearance at Xmas is entirely dependent on news sources). Furthermore, none of that demonstrates that such references are forbidden. And none of that overrides WP:CITE. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 17:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is I have never seen a single cite on any template, ever. Not to mention wikicode actually doesn't allow them to be cited as a proper reference as I tried. U-Mos (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps just provide a [1] link? As it is, the info was news to me and will likely be news to the majority of readers, and we should be helpful to them. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 17:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And these people can click on the link to the Special's section at List of Doctor Who serials, or Rory's name, or Companion (Doctor Who) itself, and easily confirm the truth of the information. U-Mos (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying, "Let's not include references on the article Barack Obama; people can just look him up on another website and easily confirm the truth of the information." We try to be helpful to readers, hence the policy on verifiability. ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 18:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think it is. As I've always understood it, navboxes are there to give simple (eg. chronological) information and provide the links to which people can find citations and further detail. U-Mos (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: citation in navbox?

Should a citation for hot-off-the-press newly-released information be included in this navbox, so that the material is easily verifiable no matter what page it is transcluded on? 18:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please make comments in your own section and avoid threaded discussions in others' sections.

Comments from involved TreasuryTag

This information is about a future event and very recently released. I quite agree that it should be listed, but as per WP:CITE, material likely to be challenged should be accompanied by an inline citation. This template is transcluded on lots of pages, and it is simply helpful to readers for such 'new' information to be sourced clearly. Furtheremore, I am not aware of any policy or guideline prohibiting the use of citations in navboxes. ╟─Treasury Tag►draftsman─╢ 18:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from uninvolved Viridtas

Poor arguments are usually constructed from statements like "but it's not prohibited". Instead argue why the cite is needed. As far as I understand it, navboxes don't require citations, and if something is disputed, it shouldn't even appear there. One could easily add references to the documentation or to the talk page header, so this is really a non-issue. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the doc and the ref. Revert if needed. Viriditas (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment from Edokter

I entirely missed this discussion, but let me be clear: references do not belong in template space, period. References should be added to the subject's main article that is being linked to, in this case Rory Williams. — Edokter • Talk — 03:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kazran and Abigail

How are they not companions? They voluntarily travelled with the Doctor multiple times, to different locations in time and space. To my mind they fit almost any definition of a companion, and if previous one episode, non-main title characters can be considered companions, even without travelling in the TARDIS, like Rosita, then why not these two? Christina, Adelaide and Astrid never travelled in the TARDIS at all, and are still considered companions. --124.176.92.57 (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about what we think are companions, but what other sources say. If you can find a source that says they are companions, then we can put them in. Otherwise, we're just guessing, and that is not permitted. — Edokter • Talk — 03:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia does and maybe Canton showed be added and the actor thinks so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.139.121 (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Pond in season 6

Based on DWC S06E06 episode, I think for Season 6 Amy Pond should be replaced by Amy Pond (ganger) for episodes 1 to 6. Hektor (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The person is Amy, no matter in what manifestation. Besides, this is a navbox, and these kind of details have no purpose here. — Edokter (talk) — 12:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig

"Playing the part" of a someone does not actually make them that Tphi (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about Craig being a companion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#Craig_a_companion.3F. Edgepedia (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alfie

I know no other source counts this, but I personally feel Alfie "Stormageddon" Owens should be included as a companion. Just because no one could understand him but the Doctor doesn't mean he wasn't essential to the plot. He tagged along as much as Craig did and he even pulled Craig back from Cyber-doom. IJVin (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

River's run

Why is this page so inconsistent over River's companion status? Either she's a companion in all her appearances, or she isn't, surely? By her own (almost reverse) timeline she surely considers herself of companion quality by her first three appearances, certainly more so than her more recent ones? MultipleTom (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about River's companion status is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#The_never-ending_Song. As to your second comment, River Song is a fictional character. Edgepedia (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kazran Sardick, Abigail Pettigrew, and the Arwells

Should they be added, they all fit the discription for a companion, even better then then some companions.

Source - http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/poll-best-one-off-companion-33452.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.139.121 (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]