Template talk:Seventh Doctor companions

Non-canon

Why has anything from Dimensions in Time onwards been included? It is non-canon... Wolf of Fenric 22:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption that it is non-canon is a contentious one. Many would say Dimensions in Time is not canon! The televised stories are clearly separated from the New Adventures, and the series of books (NA, but particularly the BBC 8th doctor ones) have been included in the continuity when the New Series were created (e.g. Russell T Davies stating that the Time War in the BBC novel is different from that mentioned in the series, rather than saying the books were non-canon). So it is reasonable to include them. Metebelis 23:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On that logic though, what of Evelyn Smythe, Sharon, Frobisher, Antimony, Catherine, Erimem, Stacy et al.? They accompany Doctors in non-canon spin-off media, but similarly interupt the flow of official canon on the templates... Wolf of Fenric 01:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, only elements and ideas from spin-off media have influenced the writing of the new series rather than been 'included' per se. Indeed, it would seem the new series has contradicted spin-off media by cannibalising spin-off plots - "Blink" borrows from the short story What I Did on My Christmas Holidays by Sally Sparrow featured in the Doctor Who Annual 2006. "Human Nature" / "The Family of Blood", are adaptations of the novel Human Nature and "Dalek" borrowed from Jubilee.

"The Impossible Planet" and "Army of Ghosts" would seem to break Dimensions in Time's claim to canonicity by referencing EastEnders as a fictional entity.

I suggest you create templates for spin-off companions separate from the main templates to rectify this situation as only including Seventh and Eight Doctor spin-off companions demonstrates bias towards the spin-off media relating to said Doctors and an all-inclusive approach would render the templates too muddled. Wolf of Fenric 01:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Issue needs wider discussion. Template can include major non-tv formats (i.e. the novels and audios) without feeling compelled to include one-off companions from every obscure comic strip. Particularly when the novels are the primary continuation of the story during the TV hiatus. Metebelis 05:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked to this debate here so that more editors may voice their views such that a consensus may be reached. Wolf of Fenric 14:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought is that most people looking for related info in such a template will be looking for that which is part of the television "canon", not niche interests such as the audios, the book ranges or other spin-offs. After all, we don't try to shoehorn Frobisher into the templates for Six and Seven, or John and Gillian into the first Doctor's template. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 14:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think novels and audios should be listed. There are quite a lot, and If we include them in one, then we have to inlcude them in others. The companion templates should only be for the T.V series. If neccesary, we could add a "spin-off companions" template for the books and audios. StuartDD 15:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The potential is to end up with unnecessarily cluttered templates. Besides, I suspect most readers looking for info on Big Finish, for example, would go straight for those articles (possibly via a search), rather than trying to sift through various TV companion articles. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 15:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NA Label

Much better than just the arrow. Good solution. Wolf of Fenric 18:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers :) Metebelis 23:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No solution at all

This "solution" doesn't address the substantive issues laid out, above. Why should only the Seventh Doctor get a reference to adventures in other media, and why then only to the NAs? If your reasoning is along the lines of "well, they were the official continuation of the show", then I'd remind you that Richard E. Grant was the "official" Ninth Doctor. Moreover, there is the point that many of the NAs had extremely low print runs, and were therefore available to fewer fans than, say, Big Finish audios or the DWM comic strip. This is especially true the further one is from Britain. Finding DWM outside the UK? Easy. Finding Lungbarrow? Nearly impossible, without significant cash.

The influence of this dead book series, as much as some fans today might love them, will not be long-lived. It's been well over a decade since they were even in print. The newest generation of Doctor Who fans will not see them as any more special than the way that some older fans might look on David Whitaker's comic exploration of the origin of the Daleks, "Genesis of Evil". At the time "Evil" was released it was seen by fans as definitive, so much so that people protested "Genesis of the Daleks", in much the same way that older fans today look at the new series contradicting certain elements of the NA. Point is, the NAs are destined to become just another example of "Doctor Who in other media" — not the "official" continuation they once might have been.

I would therefore revive the debate started above and ask that references to the NAs be deleted. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 21:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]