Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Companion deaths redux

I have been trying unsuccessfully so far to prevent an unregistered editor from messing up this section further, and hopefully that will get resolved, but to be honest this section is a big mess to start with and looking at the history I see that it has gone through a lot of changes over time. Can we come to some sort of consensus on a new structure, because a lot of the material there is redundant between the main section and the "list" subsection which is not really a list anyway. "Mitigated" is also a strange choice of word here, I think. Mezigue (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I've requested page protection and warned one of the IPs about edit warring. If it's reverted again I'll request the IP be blocked. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The section as a whole is complete cruft and should be deleted.Eshlare (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

personally the list of deaths should be cheap but it does need to be modified from its current form.

1st of all the permanent deaths should be one section and a simple list of deaths. That are part of the episode or story and characters should be included even if pre death versions of the character reaper in future episodes as happened with Clara. The only exception should be when a character is revealed to have died years after they last appear. The list should simply in clued the name and course of death as well as any notes deemed necessary.

2nd of all mitigated deaths potbelly should be deleted interlay

And last of all the spin offs should only refer to TV companions that die in these media2.103.93.46 (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

can we please have some more input into this discussion 2.103.93.46 (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Having looked over the article, I agree that it should be reduced to a simple list. There's no need for multiple charts, just a list of names, what happened to them, and the episode where they died (with an in-line note for complex cases like the Brigadier). Mitigated deaths are non-notable and should be removed. However, spin-off Doctor Who companions are still Doctor Who companions, even if they're less notable. How about a separate section for deaths occurring in other media? —Flax5 20:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Well I don't know if they are non-notable. They have become something of a fixture lately. Mezigue (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

maybe as a compromise keep only the ones that have effects beond one episode as it just seems impractical to list every time a compion died or apears to die 213.205.252.73 (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

How is it impractical when the current version does it? Mezigue (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I would not say impractical but do think that deaths that are mitigated over one episode aren't that notable I also think spin off only companions cannot be included as a note on the 8th Doctor list spsefacley says that this list is only concerned with the tv show2.103.93.46 (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability is defined by discussion in third party references, not what we personally think. Without sources the whole section should be deleted. GimliDotNet (talk) 07:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

true but it just seams pointless to list something that happens at least once a series that a why I suggest only listing occasions that do one of two things

1 has consequences over the rest of the season like the character being absent in epiasodes or leaving the series

2 results in a perminat physical change to the character like becoming immortal or existing in a computer with cases like Clara where pre death versions of the character appear in later episodes not listed2.103.93.46 (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Implementing changes if there is no objections 2.103.93.46 (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Can we move the companions deaths section to the top of the page 213.205.192.30 (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There ARE objections so please do nothing for now. @GimliDotNet and Eshlare:, which section do you think should go? The whole thing? Mezigue (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

ok pleas discus the problems2.26.207.114 (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

how can I get consensus when their is no reply in the discussion accept comets calling for consensus 2.26.174.150 (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that it's the holiday season right? People are busy and it's only been a few days. Stop making changes until people have had a chance to respond. Vyselink (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Adams death

Just like to point out that Adam Michaels death in prisoners of time is missing from the spin off deaths section I have tried to ad it but it bas been reverted 2.26.206.85 (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

River Song - Last Appearance?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't River Song's "final episode" be 'The Angels Take Manhatten'? I'm confused as to why it says 'The Wedding of River Song' when River appeared next as a companion in 'The Angels Take Manhatten?' Does this need to be changed? Editor0000 (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

In none of these was she a companion. Also, please read the note the accompanies that particular entry. Alex|The|Whovian 00:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the page for 'The Angels Take Manhatten' page should be updated - it lists River as a companion. Editor0000 (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It has been a few days, and Editor0000's helpful effort to enlighten you that the page for "The Angels Take Manhattan" still shows her as a companion has not been addressed. My edit of his comment was only to add a link to that article, to make it easier for you to jump there and make the fix that you may have missed when you told him, in good faith, "In none of these was she a companion." Thanks for looking after this.Jmg38 (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made the respective edits; thanks for the reminder. Alex|The|Whovian 06:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Terrific, thanks. Would it help reduce future changes if there's a hidden comment, right beside her name in info box in the article, with something like "<" River is not a companion, please see existing "Talk" entry ">"? I'm sure you have to spend lots of time with undo of this item. Jmg38 (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect reverting

I'm a victim of IP bias at the moment. My attempts to include updated information regarding Clara Oswald, in particular the correction of a factual error in the chart, keeps getting reverted. Maybe someone who has actually seen the episode The Snowmen and who is registered can make the edit if it gets reverted again. Or does Wikipedia not care about accuracy anymore? 68.146.233.86 (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, first and foremost, you need a source stating that in "Heaven Sent", she was played by a body double, else this is your own original research. I see no issue with the rest. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Adelaide brooks death

Should Adelaide brook be in the of screen and presumed section as we did se a flash of light as she died and news reports as well as it is a major part of the episode but then the same could be said for Amy and Rory 2.103.93.46 (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Please stop tinkering with this - none of what you are doing makes any sense. Mezigue (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The question is moot, since Adelaide Brooks shouldn't even be on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.114.69 (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

River Song

River Song is one of the doctors companions. That someone has an axe to grind is irrelevant. We do not demand sources with the word "companion" for anyone else who travels in the Tardis with The Doctor - it's just in this case some editors seem to be demanding it? She is described in the BBC blogs as a companion, we don't need that verified for every single episode she is in. GimliDotNet (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

"She is described in the BBC blogs as a companion": Where is this source that explicitly refers to River Song as a companion? Certainly not the one you're adding; the word "companion" makes zero appearances. Alex|The|Whovian 07:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The word companion doesn't have to appear, or have you checked every source for every companion on this page, with a reference for every episode you've counted? She is described as a companion here http://www.bbcamerica.com/shows//blog/2012/01/a-companion-to-the-doctors-companions-river-song. That's good enough, don't like it - at least apply the same criteria to every episode that every companion has ever appeared in or remove them too, or provide a source hat says she's not a companion and can be excluded from our normal criteria. GimliDotNet (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Invalid. That is a four-year-old source that does not apply to her episode with the Twelfth Doctor whatsoever. And why is a source (apparently) needed for "every episode"? Alex|The|Whovian 08:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

not an invalid source she is a companion with a weird timeline, and this adventure was mentioned the first time she appeared. You're demanding a special reference that describes someone traveling in the tardis with the doctor as a companion to be described as a companion. If that's the criteria for inclusion we need to apply it accross the board for every episode every companion is in. GimliDotNet (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please indent your replies accordingly. One article doesn't mean that she's permanently a companion, given her status as a recurring character. WeWikipedia requires a source for this particular episode, given that it is a one-off special, a one-off appearance, and the character's first and only appearance alongside this Doctor.

can you point to concencus were "we" agreed that criteria? GimliDotNet (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it. Alex|The|Whovian 08:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I've looked and looked, and can't find a Wikipedia policy that states companions in single episodes require greater verification than those that appear in more than one. I can only surmise that this is your opinion, and not policy and therefore up for debate. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Then explain with your own words why this should be allowed to go unsourced, where this is a point completely unrelated to previous occurrences of the character that has appeared in a different manner of episodes. Alex|The|Whovian 12:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop saying it's not sourced, it is. You reject the source as the word companion doesn't appear in it, despite this not being a requirement for the other companions. GimliDotNet (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I will continue to state that it is not sourced, due to the fact that your source is completely void of anything (word or not) appearing that dictates that River Song was an official companion. Alex|The|Whovian 12:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Again you chose to ignore this requirement for other companions. No point debating, this is a clear case of WP:OWN GimliDotNet (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Trying to discuss this, and you throw completely unfounded accusations that you've undoubtedly not even read at those who disagree with you. Obviously a lost case here. Alex|The|Whovian 12:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm with AlexTheWhovian on this one. Because of the one-off nature of the special, a source describing River Song as a companion is needed before we can add her to the companions list. I personally am of the opinion (and have stated it before on other pages) that one-off's, in my mind, shouldn't count as companions AT ALL, but I think that I am in the minority on that one. And if you can find a RS that states that she is a companion then so be it. But until then, River Song should not be added as a companion of the Twelfth Doctor. And the source you gave Gimli does not fit that bill, as it is from before the Twelfth even existed. Vyselink (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

She flies the TARDIS, she drives the action, she decides what they will do and where they will go, while he tags along and is surprised to see that it is "bigger on the inside." Come on, guys, it is abundantly clear that Doctor Song is "The Doctor" and the gray-haired guy is the companion, until the last few minutes of the episode!! (I'm helping - right?).

Kidding aside, I'd like to see her count as a companion for Christmas 2015, but this is such a special and unique situation, a (potential) one-off with the Twelfth Doctor, a Christmas Special role rather than an ongoing series role, a wife who is (unknowingly) "borrowing" her husband in an equal role rather than supporting him in an escapade... these circumstances are troublesome to define on their own, but together they make this a very complicated call. It is complicated enough that a clear and "current" source should be found. I'm sincere in saying that I'm pulling for GimliDotNet, but this one is too unique to proceed without a source specific to this episode. (please, please, let that source exist - or I imagine that this will be edited and undone countless times over the coming years!). Stupid question (I know, so you don't have to tell me it's stupid), but is there a public website for BBC that might answer this question, if asked? Jmg38 (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why she isn't a companion in "The Husbands of River Song", she was credited in the opening titles and was with the Doctor for the entire episode. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't use the opening credits as a basis. Jenna was credited first in Death in Heaven - does that make her the Doctor? No. Alex|The|Whovian 23:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source that says that, otherwise it's original research and synthesis--especially since John Simm was also credited in the opening titles. DonQuixote (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is any debate as she's more of a companion hear than I any other episode 2.26.206.85 (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion and not the citation of a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

just pointing out that it does not make sense that she's not a companion in husbands or any post wedding episode 2.26.206.85 (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, all your own view. This is not a forum to discuss what you personally believe. Alex|The|Whovian 11:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

[1] From the BBC Worldwide site... So, should River be added as a companion of Twelve now? Intyre (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Quote from Steven Moffat in the DWM's 500th issue: "So there’ll be somebody else – a different, guest companion – this Christmas, like how River Song played the companion role in last year’s special".[2] Intyre (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Bill's inclusion

OK, despite the clear process of WP:BRD and my invitation to discuss I don't want to get sucked into an edit war so I'm going to open it to the floor: why does Bill not appearing yet mean she shouldn't be listed on the article? Nardole and that bizarre "TBA" placeholder for Christmas 2016 I get, but Bill is directly and verifiably named as a "companion" in pretty much all secondary sources and the promotional build-up to her character's reveal. What's the issue with including her here? I don't see one. We know she's coming, we know when, and we know she's a companion. U-Mos (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No - she is directly and verifiably named as a future companion, at which point she can be included in the list. As I've said before, Doctor Who travels into the future but Wikipedia does not. Mezigue (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you need to actually back up why that should be the case, rather than just repeatedly stating it. Why does her episodes not being broadcast yet mean we should be bypassing verifiable information? Do we not have information about series 10 episodes because they haven't been on yet? This is a fictional narrative: past/present/future is of no real consequence. You've offered no rationale for your point of view. U-Mos (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

My two bits, Mackie has been contracted and has filmed scenes. This can be mentioned in prose. The character itself has appeared in one promotional video. DonQuixote (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Twelfth Doctor companions

Fan4Life, please discuss the disputed content here before reverting again; leave the status quo while the discussion is in place, else you may find yourself edit-warring. Neither case has been declared here on whether they will be leaving or staying, so on Wikipedia, we list what has definitely happened, not what is going to possibly happen. This is an almost identical situation of Talk:Doctor Who § Pearl Mackie: now or when?. -- Alex^TW 13:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Having "2016 Special–10" is for Nardole is explicitly stating that he is leaving, and having simply "10" for Bill is explicitly stating that she is leaving. Fan4Life (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not in the slightest. It simply means that they have appeared in those specific series (and specials, in Nardole's case). Nothing there "explicitly" states, as you put it, that they will only appear in those series or that they're leaving afterwards; it only states that they have appeared in those series to date. -- Alex^TW 14:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

New Table

Could some sort of quick and easy-to-read table(s) be created for this page? Much like the one I threw together below based on the template of another show. Obviously things like Christmas specials will have to be figured out but still - some sort of overview? 109.151.163.87 (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Actor/Actress	Character	Appearances
		Series 1	Series 2	Series 3	Series 4	Specials	Series 5	Series 6	Series 7	Series 8	Series 9
Billie Piper	Rose Tyler	Starring			Starring	Recurring
Noel Clarke	Mickey Smith	Recurring			Recurring
Bruno Langley	Adam Mitchell	Recurring
John Barrowman	Jack Harkness	Recurring		Recurring	Starring	Recurring
Elisabeth Sladen	Sarah Jane Smith		Recurring		Starring	Recurring
Catherine Tate	Donna Noble			Recurring	Starring	Recurring
Freema Agyeman	Martha Jones			Starring		Recurring
Kylie Minogue	Astrid Peth				Starring
Bernard Cribbins	Wilfred Mott				Recurring	Starring
David Morrissey	Jackson Lake					Starring
Michelle Ryan	Lady Christina de Souza					Starring
Lindsay Duncan	Adelaide Brooke					Starring
Alex Kingston	River Song				Recurring		Recurring
Karen Gillan	Amy Pond						Starring
Arthur Darvill	Rory Williams						Recurring	Starring
James Corden	Craig Owens						Recurring
Jenna Coleman	Clara Oswald								Starring

Dearest Gods, no. These sorts of tables have become deprecated through many discussions at MOS:TV and WT:TV. And what exactly defines "Recurring" in these particular cases? Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

People who weren't credited in the titles? Like the main companions. 109.151.163.87 (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite right for here, but you've obviously put some work into it and I think it is beneficial to have something that distinguishes between starring/recurring/guest characters post-2005, where there are companions who don't star and (occasionally) stars who aren't companions. So I've taken the liberty of adapting the grid above and replacing the rather lacking table from List of Doctor Who cast members#2005 - 2015. Its intention is now to list the starring actors from the series, rather than just companions, which I think gives it more worth. Hope you approve! U-Mos (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

That is great thanks. Although I think the top of that particular page should just be for the starring companions like it has been previously. I don't know though. It's hard with a show like this which has Christmas specials that you don't know should be considered a part of other full series. 109.151.163.87 (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

¶ I hope nobody will object that I added the names of the Dr. Who actors and their dates to the list of Campanions. Sussmanbern (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

As you can see, your edit was reverted. It was incorrect in its syntax, removing the section headers for the Doctors, and this information is already available elsewhere. -- Alex^TW 09:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Craig's episodes

The character craig appeared in both closing time and the lodger, on the current wiki page (12/06/2018) it states that his first appearance is in closing time which is wasn't, it was in the lodger. I tried to change this a few days ago but it was reverted and should it be included that he appeared in both episodes since it is incorrect to just put his first appearance in as it is like he was only in that episode but it is also wrong to put his last appearance in as it looks like he travelled with the doctor for all of the time between episodes. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABlueDay (talk • contribs)

No, it does not state that. It states that "Closing Time" is the first episode in which he appears as an official companion. There is also a note, which very clearly states "Also appears in "The Lodger"". -- Alex^TW 13:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft notices for new companions

• This is just a notice that there is a draft for Ryan Sinclair at Draft:Ryan Sinclair until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. -- Alex^TW 06:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• This is just a notice that there is a draft for Graham O'Brien at Draft:Graham O'Brien until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. -- Alex^TW 06:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• This is just a notice that there is a draft for Yasmin Khan at Draft:Yasmin Khan (Doctor Who) until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. -- Alex^TW 06:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

New term

Now called "Friends" not companions. How does this affect this page? https://screenrant.com/doctor-no-longer-companions-friends/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1c0:ca01:bf60:24e1:27f9:6c8c:a570 (talk • contribs)

If the majority of reliable sources use the new terminology (keep in mind that this is 55+ years of reliable sources), then encyclopaedias will follow suit. DonQuixote (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Very likely absolutely nothing. -- Alex^TW 02:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The change from "Companion" to "Friend(s)" is very important in the progressive evolution of the Doctor Who franchise, particularly in the #MeToo and Trump era, and that change should not only be included, but highlighted. This is PRECISELY what Wikipedia is supposed to chronicle. Changes are being made to the gender pronouns over all Doctor Who WP entries for the Doctor's gender when referred in the generic sense, so such changes can, and should, be made here as well. This includes changing the term as the official heading.Michaelopolis (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to chronicle the reliable secondary sources, keeping in mind their relative prominence. Unless reliable sources begin discussing anything like what you're proposing, we can't start doing it ourselves. DonQuixote (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Combined notes

Was there a discussion around grouping all the "nb" notes at the bottom of the page, rather than under each Doctor's table? Not sure who that's meant to benefit; it compromises the clarity of information significantly and I propose changing it back. U-Mos (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Notes should exist in a singular section at the end of the article, per MOS:NOTES, identical to references. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Paine Ellsworth: I believe you made this change from edit history. I think the amount of notes here, and their specificity to each individual table, mean it's not beneficial to have them all grouped together. They are discursive notes rather than references, and the table format makes notes under each more natural. U-Mos (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

To editors U-Mos and Alex 21: That was awhile back in 2016. Trouble was that, to me anyway, the setup of nb notes following each section was a bit confusing. My edit summary, "Notes section for Wikipedia article consistency and remove all table notes to this section..." lacked good reason, and so my apologies for that. The community consensus that formed and shaped the style guideline has chosen to keep these types of notes in their own section near the bottom of an article. Part of it was probably that clicking on a note takes you to the specific note no matter where that note is placed on the page, and then clicking on the carat (^) usually takes the reader back to where they left off, again no matter where the note is located on the page. You, U-Mos, say that you find the table format makes notes under each more natural. You might want to get more input from editors on that, since at this point I'm not sure which is better for table formats. It would be interesting to see what other editors think about this issue. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  21:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Indeed, it would be useful to see what others think about this. I'd say that with notes under each table, all the information is in front of you without the need to click and navigate up and down the page, making it more intuitive. But maybe that's just me. Would an RfC be appropriate here? U-Mos (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

To editor U-Mos: haven't really found much on this issue of footnotes and tables. There is nothing on tables specifically at MOS:NOTES; however, I did find a table that used a footnote at MOS:TABLES (Discographies), and the actual note was found at the bottom of the page in a References section. So at least by example it would appear that notes should go at or near the bottom of the page.

Since the guideline is a bit wanting, an RfC is probably the best way to go. And yes, here on this page is a good place to start one. It might lead to clarification and improvement of the guideline whichever way editors were to decide to go. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  07:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on notes format

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.

---

Should discursive notes in pages consisting of multiple tables be placed below each table, or at the bottom of the page? U-Mos (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Please provide examples of "discursive notes" and "pages consisting of multiple tables"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

As on this page: Companion (Doctor Who) (and see discussion directly above). U-Mos (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I assume you mean this. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Page bottom. Placing footnotes in the same section might make sense in a printed encyclopedia, but Wikipedia is designed for online use (including cellphones, where "all the information" would likely not be in front of you). Perhaps that explains why layout puts all footnotes after "See also" and before "External links," and has no text suggesting any exceptions for discursive notes or for notes in tables. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Page bottom (weak) to note my preference made with this edit in 2016. Before that, such notes had been placed at the bottom of each table as the nom suggests. There was no specific guideline found that expressly addressed notes in multiple tables, so that might be a major need here. There have also been no precedents shown either way in other articles with multiple tables, which might help this decision along – there is only the example seen in the guideline. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  18:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Prefer notes of each table under the table it goes with. (Weak) Due to the smallness of table and limited number of nb, this is doable and makes all the related info visible at once. The NB via pop up is not bad and the appearance is cleaner locally, but it does not make everything visible and requires multiple clicks effort — and leaves a bigger mess at the bottom. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Page bottom per my comment in the above discussion. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• (legobot call) Leave it to local consensus. In this case I don't see a major problem with either approach, they both make sense, and they would both work. For this specific article I have no personal preference. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic:

One wonders, what is the significance of "(legobot call)"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butwhatdoiknow (talk • contribs) It's probably to specify that the person commenting hasn't been involved in this discussion in any way until requested by a bot to make a comment. DonQuixote (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC) See User:Legobot, task 33. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Thanks for the link, but "Take over of RFC bot (task 1, task 2), GA bot, One bot and Chris G Bot 3" doesn't mean much to the uninitiated (of which I am a member). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Please sign your posts properly. Your question has been answered: the editor came after being summoned to the RFC by a bot account. -- /Alex/21 00:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Page bottom. They're called "footnotes" for a reason, not "middle-of-page trivial distraction notes".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  Commment: It can be argued that, since this is a web page and a printed copy is several pages long, what you're referring to is the "endnotes". It can also be argued that the table notes in this discussion are the web page equivalent of "footnotes" (although I'm not the one who's going to go out on a limb for that one). Personally, that's why I'm indifferent to which option is best. DonQuixote (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  Also, it's common for tables to have notes. See Table 2. DonQuixote (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  It's common for tables to have notes immediately below them that are concise and required for proper interpretation. These are not such notes. They're extensive trivial commentary primarily of interest to people who are already fans. Some of it may not even be encyclopedically appropriate and better for something like a Doctor Who wiki. Even if all these notes were really necessary, they are too long and too many, so page-bottom is the more sensible place for them. It's the default location (see MOS:LAYOUT) for all such notes, whether generated for reference citations or (e.g. with {{efn}} and {{notelist}}) for clarification notes and other asides. We'd need a compelling reason to override that default.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  DonQuixote, please don't do that. Every other time anyone mentions "footnotes" or "endnotes" on this site, someone starts a pedantic argument about which term "should" be used in this medium and their hypotheses as to why. It has no resolution, it never goes anywhere, we're all tired of it.  :-) In a digital document that grows and shrinks dynamically over time and which has no pagination, there is no effective difference between the endnote and footnote concepts, since they serve precisely the same function and will be in precisely the same position (at the end of the single-page document).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  So please don't use They're called "footnotes" for a reason as an argument because it's debatable (and from what I gather from what you state above, non-constructive--never goes anywhere). Your trivial commentary argument is actually a better argument and one I'm inclined to support. DonQuixote (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  Um, the entire point is that "foot" and "end" are synonymous in this context.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• As with Pbsouthwood, I don't see a problem with either approach, but trimming trivial commentary might help the situation a bit. DonQuixote (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• For Dr Who companions, per table

If They're called "footnotes" for a reason, then the advocate of that should note that foot in that context means foot of a printed paper page, rather than the end of the chapter or book. The point being that they're visible at the same time, without scrolling. Our 'page' is more like the window or screeenful in this context.

I see no reason for a single dogmatic rule here. Editors should be able to edit appropriately. If the tables are many, each is long, and there is no value whatsoever to keeping all of these notes in one place, then by all means choose to place them per-table. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Since this seems to be a bit controversial, I'd like to ask RexxS to give an opinion. I just read your accessibility page at User:RexxS/Accessibility, and it occurs to me that where the reference notes/footnotes are placed might be an accessibility issue. We can't seem to find anything specific about where to place those notes... at the bottom of each table? or at the bottom of the article? In your opinion, which of these choices gives the highest accessibility for those Wikipedia readers who require it? And is this something that needs to be added to the MoS? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  15:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Paine Ellsworth: there's not likely to be much of an issue for visually impaired visitors who use a screen reader. Notes of the kind under discussion are accessed via hyperlink, so the 'distance' between the link and the target isn't relevant in those cases. The same applies to visitors using small screen devices. The only difference between the two cases is more likely to occur on a larger monitor, where placing the notes immediately below a table might make them visible without following a hyperlink. That's a pretty small advantage, and probably not enough to justify site-wide guidance such as in the MOS.

  Personally, I'd advise not to try for a prescriptive solution, but rather to allow editors the flexibility to do what they feel is best in each individual article when there's no clear advantage for recommending either solution. --RexxS (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you, makes sense! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  16:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

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.

Handles

This page is missing one of the Eleventh's longest-term companions: Handles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You would need to cite a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The source is Doctor Who. It happened on the show. Handles was a very long-time companion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk • contribs)

Karvanista

Why isn't the Fugitive Doctor's companion, Karvanista, listed here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Replying to all your queries above, per Wikipedia policy you would need to cite a reliable secondary source. Tertiary sources like Wikipedia work by citing and summarising what secondary sources have to say. DonQuixote (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)