Jump to content

Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.196.162.105 (talk) at 13:26, 24 April 2022 (→Jackie Tyler added as a companion?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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"". -- AlexTW 13:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft notices for new companions

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)[reply]
Very likely absolutely nothing. -- AlexTW 02:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Request for comment on notes format

PAGE BOTTOM
Reading through the discussion, I see a rough consensus to put notes at the bottom of the page. That being said, participants pointed out that there is no general guideline on the location of discursive notes. The scope of this close is limited only to Companion (Doctor Who), but should a guideline be created the issue should be revisited. I'm happy to answer any questions about this close. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please provide examples of "discursive notes" and "pages consisting of multiple tables"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As on this page: Companion (Doctor Who) (and see discussion directly above). U-Mos (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean this. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Page bottom per my comment in the above discussion. -- /Alex/21 04:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See User:Legobot, task 33. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Page bottom. They're called "footnotes" for a reason, not "middle-of-page trivial distraction notes".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Also, it's common for tables to have notes. See Table 2. DonQuixote (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Um, the entire point is that "foot" and "end" are synonymous in this context.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    Thank you, makes sense! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  16:43, 14 April 2019 (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.

Jackie Tyler added as a companion?

Just wanted to ask everyones opinion on potentially adding Jackie Tyler to the list of the Tenth Doctor's companions? I think because she was featured in multiple episodes and did travel in the Tardis which is a main characteristic of a companion in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRani1999 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to cite a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source is Doctor Who. It happened on the show. Jackie was a traveling companion several times.

Ok, I will have a look for one then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRani1999 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You would need to cite a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source is Doctor Who. It happened on the show. Handles was a very long-time companion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Companion_(Doctor_Who)&oldid=1084434777"