Talk:Martha Jones

Second Companion?

Surely she'll be the third companion of the Tenth Doctor, not the second? Rose is the first, Mickey the second and Martha the third. -NickBarlow 16:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'd have thought. Let's count that again

1. Rose
2. Mickey
3. Martha

Yeah, still three! Morwen - Talk 16:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, though some argue that Mickey doesn't count (for whatever reasons), he is listed in [Category:Doctor Who Companions], so for reasons of Wikipedia's own internal consistency, Martha should be listed as the third. I edited the page to say as much, but didn't give a good reason, so it was changed back. Does someone with an account fancy giving it a go? - Ben Swithen.

I think "second regular", the present wording, is fine. Morwen - Talk 16:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I consider Captain Jack Harkness to have been a companion too, moreso than Mickey. He was there for about 5 episodes I think. So it should either be "second", with Rose being the first, or "fourth", with Rose, Jack and Mickey going before them. Though another case for Rose being the only proper companion is that fact that "Billie Piper" was the only name along with David Tennant which appeared in the opening credits. Jamandell (d69) 17:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What episode did Jack Harkness travel with the Tenth Doctor in? Morwen - Talk 19:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks for pointing that one out! My apologies! Jamandell (d69) 19:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mickey doesn't count is sort of a running joke throughout the series isn't it? He even adopts the self deprecatory moniker of 'the tin dog'. So even if he did travel with the Doctor, missing him out is sort of appropriate. BTW there needs to be a better definition of Companion than 'travelled with'. Several people were 'given a lift' in the Tardis - such as Lady Cassandra. Is Jackie a companion, then? --Nantonos 12:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

yh 147.188.245.149 (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

We need to recognise that one cannot formally define who is and is not a companion. There is no objective right and wrong here, so we should not pretend there is. (There's no point trying to be consistent if there's no basis on which to be consistent.) Instead of having endless arguments over whether Mickey or Chang Lee or whoever is or is not a companion, we should recognise and report the debate from an out-of-universe perspective (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). It would appear that Martha is going to replace Rose's narrative role in the series, which is a different role to Mickey's. Rose so far has had equal billing with the Doctor, not something accorded to the several 'minor' companions the new series has had so far (Captain Jack, Adam, Mickey, Jackie). At the same time, Mickey has sometimes had a narrative role akin to many companions of old. Bondegezou 09:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh, here's a definition for companion: foxy lady that travels with the Doctor. How's that unclear? ;P It also conveniently disqualifies Mickey, who will hopefully stay in his other reality for good now. Bringa 18:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I realise the tongue was in the cheek there, Bringa, but you do realise that the Doctor has had several male companions in the past? Ian Chesterton, Steven Taylor, Jamie McCrimmon, Harry Sullivan, Adric, Turlough... Bondegezou is right, since there is no objective standard for who is and isn't a companion, we shouldn't try to impose one. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

On another note, "minority ethnic" or "ethnic minority"? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Times uses "minority ethnic" in an adjectival role, so that's good enough for me! Bondegezou 09:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed that just because it looked weird to my (American) eyes, forgetting that it had been discussed here. If anyone wants to revert to "minority ethnic", feel free. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, should, in the discussion of Martha as possibly the first minority ethnic TV companion, there been mention of Chang Lee? He's sometimes treated as a companion. Bondegezou 09:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

He's one of those "possibly"s, because he really was the Master's companion at the time. I think that it's about time I really started work on that Companion (Doctor Who) article where we can lay out the whole ugly debate, which ones are disputed and which generally aren't. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess Sarah Jane Smith doesn't count then? :) -- Chuq 04:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Smith doesn't count as a companion of the Tenth Doctor, no.

I count her as the Tenth Doctor's fourth companion, if you define a companion as somebody who travels with the Doctor between stories: Rose, Mickey, Donna, and Martha. -- MisterHand 16:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, Donna Noble did not travel between stories. 9th Doctor: Rose Tyler, Adam Mitchell, Jack Harkness, 10th Doctor: Rose Tyler, Mickey Smith, and Martha Jones. -- AvatarMN 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to forget that Donna was a companion before Martha. She may have only been in one episode but she was still his companion. If you count Jack, Adam and Mickey then Martha is the 6th companion of the new series Doctors (9 and 10) and 4th of 10th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoniverse93 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Really minor point...but..

It says she is human on the article. But we don't really know that do we? Yes, it's most likely, but I don't think it's been confirmed. Jamandell (d69) 17:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

She's got very human first and last names, and, well, is played by a human actress. As that's basically all we know about the character, I think it's safe to go with that assumption unless/until proved otherwise... Radagast 16:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

She's played by a human actress as opposed to? -Bringa 18:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Pamela Anderson is mostly plastic, so I suppose she's an Auton... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This show has had a couple robot companions in the past! It's best to specify, I think. :) Radagast 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Content Removed until 00.01(BST) 5th July

See Talk:Doomsday_(Doctor_Who)#New_Companion The_B 18:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Best citation?

It probably doesn't matter that much, but is there any advantage in changing the "medical student" citation from the Doctor Who website to the BBC Press Office's press release? That might seem a bit more formal and less "fannish" — but do we need to? (I guess I'm wondering if it's worth the effort — the content of the two pages is practically identical, and they're both BBC websites...) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Just randomly wanted to point out...

She's the best looking Who companion since Romanadvoratrelundar #1. I'm tellin' ya, British blacks are VERY attractive!! Sophie Okonedo, Marsha Thomason... ;) Hopefully her character will have a personality as cool and as attractive as Romana's, BEFORE Romana's regeneration. :( Anyway... --Promus Kaa 19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary note

My usual question...what's contemporary here? When is Martha Jones living? After December 2007 surely (as per The Runaway Bride) anywhere up to or beyond January 2009 (as per Invasion of the Bane). Anyone any info here? [User: - Stripey]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.249.187.178 (talk • contribs) 20:32, March 25, 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say. The current production team hasn't been very clear about this, and barring any explicit evidence in the episode, it's original research to say. There certainly hasn't been anything explicit in the pre-publicity. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

Maybe, like Rose, it just didn't want to tell us. It said it was after Doomsday, but that was an absolute given. It's likely to be after The Runaway Bride, considering that The Doctor was still hung up on his memories of Rose in that episode, and has had "time" to adjust more when he speaks of her to Martha. Whether or not it's after Everything Changes, or Out of Time, remains the main query. [User: Stripey].

I believe the production team has stated that Smith and Jones took place contemporously(March 2007). I don't think Martha mentioned any events from the Runaway Bride. I don't have a link handy though. 75.162.9.53 20:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A kiss is just a kiss

I removed a sentence about the kiss from Smith and Jones and its possible implications for a couple of reasons: first, if we're going to cite it, it would probably be better to cite the official website rather than YouTube (even if it is BBC-sponsored YouTube); second, press reports from the debut suggest that, like the kiss between the Doctor and "Rose" in New Earth, there's more (or less) to this kiss than may meet the eye; and third, given that, I think it's best to wait on mentioning it until the episode airs.

That said, we probably do want to have a section in the article about Martha's relationship with the Doctor. One recent interview had someone — possibly Agyeman, possibly RTD? — describing it as "unrequited love", suggesting that Martha was romantically interested in the Doctor but he doesn't reciprocate. If we can find that source, we could include it and other press snippets (such as the "sharing a bed" business from The Shakespeare Code) in an appropriate section. But we should keep in mind that based on past experience, these snippets are generally more ambiguous in the episodes as aired than the press makes them out to be beforehand. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that Daleks in Manhattan and Evolution of the Daleks have aired, perhaps something more could be added on the unrequited love theme since Martha has commented on this in-series. For example, Tullula says it's obvious that Martha has a thing for the Doctor, and Martha says the Doctor looks at her and doesn't see her. --Nantonos 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Surely the picture should be showing just Martha, rather than her kissing the Doctor? You can't actually make out her face in the one that's currently there - not to mention that the image quality is incredibly bad.--Rambutan (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Someone is very keen on that kiss picture, and keeps inserting it in different articles. I've restored the publicity picture of Martha solo here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done! Keen on the kiss picture... maybe Freema herself? :-) --Rambutan (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Martha's Family

Unlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Talk:Martha_Jones What links hereike Rose's family, Martha's family do not seem to be as pivotal to the series - they only appear briefly at the beginning and the end of their first episode, Smith and Jones, and play no vital role in the main events.

POV, yeah? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.206.228.15 (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Looks like your wrong now 86.157.43.112 17:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Martha's History

I have some serious concerns over the history section for Martha as it makes a handful of statements that have thus far been proven false in the five episodes shown of Series 3 thus far, and also certain comments that have been made about the character Rose Tyler.

The first point of concern being this: Freema Agyeman told the school publication The Newspaper that Martha is older and more secure than Rose[8] (whose paternal issues made the bulk of the subtext of her relationship with the Doctor, particularly in his ninth incarnation). This statement is phrased in such a way that implies that Rose had paternal issues which she had displaced on the Doctor, which is flat out untrue. The only time her parents were ever an issue was during the episode Father's Day, and it certainly was never the "bulk of the subtext of her relationship with the Doctor." In the Confidentials, RTD and the actors themselves had on a constant bases clearly stated that Rose and the Doctor were in love, and paternal issues were never mentioned.

The second point of concern is as follows: Martha, by contrast, travels with the Doctor for the adventure rather than because of a need for guidance or education; Agyeman also told The Newspaper that Martha hopes to eventually go back to Earth and finish her medical education. In spite of what the interview article may has stated, this is not the facts as Rose had stated in the episode Army of Ghosts that for the first 19 years of her life, nothing ever happened to her. And then she met the Doctor, who presented her with an escape from the dullness of her life. Getting educated was never an issue - Rose did leave for the adventure, and eventually stayed on because of her affection for the Doctor, intending to stay with him forever.

The third point of concern is this: It is noticeable that Martha shows off a lot more cleavage that Rose did and that physical interaction, such as kissing, with the Doctor is also more common. This statement is just plain unfounded as, and I counted, three kisses and multiple hugs are shared between Rose and the Doctor in the first two seasons of the new series, which out numbers by far the single kiss shared between Martha and the Doctor in Smith and Jones. And also, is the cleavage statement really relevant? I took the initiative and deleted this statement as, if needed, I can fully prove the invalidity of it. -- Talisha 9:37 May 2

I see all of it is still there, so maybe this isn't needed, but keep in mind that all of the points you have a problem with are under the Conception subheading and clearly described as Ms. Agyeman's comments on the character. This isn't even a matter of truth v. verifiability. These are in fact (well, I'm trusting prior editors and their sources) the actress' comments about the two characters and, right or wrong, those comments and her concept of the character she played, should be included. 75.93.122.115 (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's all original research which should be removed.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Time period

This page, and others like Leo Jones and Tish Jones, all state that the characters are from 2008, but has there been any proof of this? A date of 2007 would be perfectly consistent with the continuity, especially taking into account the Doctor's remark about the last Harry Potter book in The Shakespeare Code. Until it's confirmed, shouldn't it be left simply as "21st Century"? David 16:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking all the episodes together, of the latest series and those of the spin-offs, you arrive at 2008. However, throwaway references often end up placing the episodes in the current year, likely due to inattentiveness on the part of the writers. It's been compared to the UNIT dating controversy already. Certainly looks like a worthy heir. --77.99.30.226

If the Martha Jones blog counts as canon, I guess that would make Martha from 2008 or beyond. In the entry that was posted after "Blink" aired, she treats Rose like somebody from the past.Mazinkaiser666 19:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

By past I mean, she seems to be from the near future, viewing the year 2007 as a time a few, maybe even several, years back.Mazinkaiser666 19:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's very true. And amusingly odd, since whoever is writing those blogs has managed to get the times right where numerous script writers have failed. --77.99.30.226 14:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Although it does manage to upset the proposed (by fans) date of Family of Blood's last scene at the same time. Hah. --77.99.30.226 14:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added her home year to the article since, with the airing of ...Drums, it now seems definitive. --77.99.30.226 22:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

When was the year mentioned? Not doubting, just wondering! David 19:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, the US presidential election will be held in November 2008. The president-elect will get inaugurated in January 2009. (But the again, the president-elect holds no authority like he did in Sound of Drums.) DonQuixote 02:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone's just changed the date to 2007 - but that would mean the events of The Runaway Bride are yet to happen (it seems pretty clear that Xmas Invasion was set in 2006 and RB at Xmas 2007). Those events were reference in The Sound of Drums, so Martha must be from at least 2008 (and she just hasn't read HP7 yet). David 08:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As of Turn Left, it proves that Martha is from 2008. --°wɧoɳɪvɛʀsɜ 23:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Image:Marthajones.jpg is old, and she doesn't dress like that any more. Image:Martha Jones LOTTL.jpg better represents her more recent appearances (and imho makes her look better :-p) and also makes her look more like a Torchwood character.--Codenamecuckoo 07:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be more than one fair-use image of Martha floating around, especially one that isn't being used on four different pages. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 18:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason we can't use both, with appropriate captions to establish fair use? I think there's a valid point to be made about using the second image in the context of discussing the character's development. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 18:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as character development goes, does the second image help say much? That arc generally focuses on her relationship with the Doctor (growth of unrequited love, frustration at lack of repricocity, acceptance that it'll go nowhere etc). Of course, it is, visually, a far more striking image of her in her role as companion (the first is just posing and looking pretty). If we're stuck using the one, then, provided the proper formalities have been observed, I wouldn't object to the new one being the main image. Mark H Wilkinson 19:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Other picture with her in black! First of all, the one we have of Martha Jones....well, doesn't really look like her, because of the squinty eyes. I saw the one with her in black...it's a lot more appealing Seriphyn 19:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Upload it over the one in use if you consider it better. Saves the trouble of updating four links. There's absolutely no reason to use one here and another somewhere else. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded a screencap of her from the Sontaran Strategem ttrailer although someone removed it saying i had provided a fair use rationale :(. Although I Did. Harmless 77 (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have been reverted by User:Edokter with the rationale "Publicity image is prefered over screenshot", and it seems that fair use is easier to justify for a publicity image. Since your image is now orphaned, it's being considered for deletion, and I suggest you discuss it with User:Edokter. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

MySpace Blog

A citation link to Martha's MySpace blog is currently catching the attention of the spam filter. I've put in a request to whitelist it[1], but we can't edit the article while it's still there. Assuming no one objects, I'm going to remove the URL for the time being until it gets sort, but leave the dated reference. Mark H Wilkinson 15:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above, I've changed the link to her MySpace site, in the hope people can find the entry from its date and title. Mark H Wilkinson 15:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea that citing the blog would cause a problem, especially as the character's MySpace site was already in External links. Sorry about that! I was just trying to include relevant info and forestall others adding back suppositions about Torchwood. (Heck, it could equally be an offer from Hunky Doctor Guy.) ;) -- Karen | Talk | contribs 16:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's no big deal. We're better off knowing there's a problem than not. Mark H Wilkinson 17:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Is nthat Myspace page genuine? REALLY doesn't look it to me.Indisciplined (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood and WP:CRYSTAL

Since it's been confirmed by a reliable source, and this is properly verifiable and cited, I can't quite see the problem with stating this on her page. It doesn't say that she works for Torchwood: that would be OR. It just says that she's affiliated with them, and she is if she appears in three episodes.--Rambutan (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, we don't know what her involvement in the episodes will be. I'm inclined to deem it WP:CRYSTAL for the time being. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 15:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I agree that we don't know she'll be working for them. But if she's in the episode, then she must have some connection with them, no matter how abstruse it is.--Rambutan (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And we will eventually discover the nature of that connection. And if it turns out to be something that can be identified as "affiliation", we'll have primary source by then. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

But we've got a BBC source that says she'll be in Torchwood. And since Torchwood is in Torchwood, she's got a connection with them. An affiliation doesn't require any more knowledge than that she's connected with them, and we know that.--Rambutan (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Davros was "connected" with the Doctor. Would you call that an affiliation? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep.--Rambutan (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a source on the episode numbers listed for her Torchwood appearances (4,5,6)? If so, can that be cited properly, please? Radagast 03:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Have reverted. Couldn't find a reliable source — couldn't even find a blog post. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity and Racism

This section probably doesn't even need to be here, but since people will made race/ethnicity an issue even when it's not, then the following should be changed.

In the episode "The Shakespeare Code", Martha wonders if she is safe in an era before emancipation, but the Doctor is blasé – when she prompts: "[I'm] not exactly white, if you hadn't noticed", he is non-plussed, ethnicity being irrelevant to the open-minded.

"...ethnicity being irrelevent to the open-minded." The Doctor is a timelord, so being "open minded" has less to do with his views on ethnicity than the fact that he's not a human. It's not like he's a caucasian who grew up in the South (United States) and has been exposed to the whole idea of racism/biggotry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.167.254 (talk) 07:47, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does look like unnecessary POV. I'll reword it. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Martha and Rose

Since the question has been asked, here's the extent of the info from the BBC[2] about Rose and Martha in combination: "Rose's return will mean the Doctor has three assistants in next year's series - Donna, played by Catherine Tate, and Freema Agyeman as Martha."

Leaving aside the fact that somebody failed to count to three, it still doesn't say what people are assuming, that Martha and Rose will be in the same episodes. I'll be surprised if they don't at least overlap, but all the story says is that they're both in Series Four. (Also notice that Jack isn't listed as one of the "assistants", for whatever reason.) We therefore should avoid expressions such as "alongside" and "appears with", at least until something more concrete emerges, if at all. --Karen | Talk | contribs 22:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

List Torchwood episodes?

I'm struggling to see what the objection to listing (and citing) the episodes of Torchwood that Martha will be appearing in over the next few weeks. It's not about WP:CRYSTAL, because it's been confirmed when she'll be on the air... what's the prob? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, my main objection would be that those episodes don't even have titles yet, and as such, the information doesn't have any context in this article. Having "2.6" really doesn't give any information. Once we have article/titles to link to, then there would be no problem. Untill then, "recurring" provides just as much information without sounding to... database-ish. — Edokter • Talk • 21:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It tells Joe Bloggs that she'll be in the sixth episode, which he may want to watch specially for her. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood "boyfriend" reference

I removed a line from the section regarding her appearances on Torchwood. The line stated that she has "settled down with a boyfriend" since becoming a doctor and joining U.N.I.T.

She only makes a passing reference to a boyfriend in the episode, as a means of deflecting the flirtations of Owen Harper. If we're going to assume anything from this reference, I'd say it's this:

-While the comment could have been true, there's nothing to indicate that she's "settled down", whatever that means.

-The comment could indicate that she still has feelings for the Doctor.

-Or the comment could indicate neither of the above, and simply be a deflection on her part.

I've reworded the line as I thought appropriate... Feel free to adjust it if you disagree, but I'd leave the "settled down" part out if it were me. -Juansmith (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We have to take what she said at face value; it's original research to do otherwise. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I can accept that, but the "settled down" portion of the line still strikes me as commentary. Even if we take everything on the show at face value, without any interpretation, she's a doctor that works in the paranormal and for a covert branch of the UN. She indicates that she travels a lot. Does any of this sound "settled" to you? Even if we're not permitted to read into (what I consider to be) the obvious subtext of the "boyfriend" line, then we must apply this rule uniformly and leave the rest of the commentary out. If you agree, please reword the line accordingly... I'm leaving it alone for now. -Juansmith (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

But it should now be added because as we found out, in series four, she is engaged. Donna notes that she must have gotten over the doctor fast. Lovingnews1989 (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

This article's main image was recently changed from Image:Marthajones.jpg to Image:MJones.png with the edit summary "All things being equal, the cropped image does have a stronger fair use justification than the uncropped one. Certainly this is not a clear-cut NFCC issue that can be reverted without explanation." Could you clarify the actual reason for changing the image, as I don't quite understand. The fair use rationale of the current image says "To Provide a recent and up to date image for identification of a main character" which to me suggests recentism. The reason I initally uploaded Image:Marthajones.jpg in favour of the previous version was because I wanted to show her in her red jacket. The DVDs describe that jacket as her definitive look, and I think the image should reflect that, even if she hasn't worn it recently. This sounds petty I know, but recentism annoys me.  Paul  730 22:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The citation of image replacement "NFCC" was confusing (at least to me), since the image it replaced also had a Fair-Use rationale. I don't think there's much, if anything, to be gained by comparing FU rationales (which are in themselves valid) for strength; the WM/WP guidelines do not make that distinction, and in most cases we would be arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Better to treat this as an issue of content, and that is one of "classicism" vs "recentism", if you like. I'm not going to express an opinion either way since it is for the editors of the article to achieve consensus. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We have had this discussion over the Rose Tyler image; the original image(s) are preferred over cropped wallpapers or screenshots, because the originals are publicity/promotional material. Screenshots are not, and the wallpapers even less since they are explicitely licenced for "personal use only", which makes fair-use even more problematic. Therefor, I have reverted back to the original images. — Edokter • Talk • 01:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, It was me who uploaded the image, sorry if it annoyed anyone, i just think that the image should be recent because it will show up to date info. Harmless 77 (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood series 3

She was supposed to appear, but Freema has been sacked for working for ITV! [3] Should this be noted? Jack apparently offered her a job at the end of Journey's End, but now she won't be taking it. Digifiend (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. The Sun as a reliable source? We don't regard it as such anywhere else except in relation it itself, and this is not a pressing issue. I'd suggest we wait until something more credible turns up- as it will. --Rodhullandemu 12:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably true, but we're forced to wait until somewhere more reliable (like an interview with a star/creator, or the Radio Times) comments on it.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If she was fired for taking a job with ITV, why did the BBC then give her a role in a major new upcoming series of there's, 'Survivors'. The characted was never planned to be in the much-reduced third series of Torchwood. Some people on internet chat rooms have just put 2 and 2 together, and made 135 (came to the wrong assumption that the charachter was moving to Torchwood) and have then had to come to an extreme expalnation when it turned out that that wasn't going to happen. Indisciplined (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the definitive source, at last: Sepinwall, Alan (2009-06-26). "Russell T. Davies talks 'Doctor Who' & 'Torchwood'". New Jersey Star Legder. Retrieved 2009-07-09.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That source confirms that there were plans for her to be in series 3, but this still isn't notable and I don't see that it needs to be added. The fact is that Martha isn't in series 3, so why clog up the article with needless info? She certainly hasn't been sacked by the BBC. magnius (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It is however the sort of useful real-world information which fictional character articles are supposed to revolve around.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Other Appearances

Why is she the only major character not to have an "Other Appearances" section? Instead of a neat list of her stories, she has to make do with a few paragraphs about what else she's been in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Wake (talk • contribs) 18:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Radio

Martha appears in the radio play Lost Souls (Torchwood) where she has been working at CERN. There isn't currently a section this would fit into, but should a radio section be created for just this one appearance? Could the literature section be changed to other apperances to take in the radio play? Million_Moments (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Race vs Species

In her info box it lists her race as human - surely this is her species? 135.196.2.145 (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In intergalatic terms (ie sci-fi-speak), it's the same thing. Besides, isn't this the 21st century? DonQuixote (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If they're the same in sci-fi speak surely it'd be best to use species, as this is correct in scientific/real-world speak? Species refers to sets such as humans, cats, cows, birds, bacteria, lemons, grass etc. - race refers to subsets like Western honey bee, Mexican lime, red deer, etc. The pages on Species and Race in wikipedia are very clear on this - Human is a species, and dividing the human species into subspecies Race categories is an outdated social construct. It is indeed the 21st century, so the 'Race' label in the info box should be removed and replaced by Species. Marthiemoo (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Name

OK, so... as no one seems to care, I'll go for it: shouldn't the name of the page be Martha Smith-Jones (and redirect Martha Jones links to it)?! Napy1kenobi (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia uses the most common name of articles' subjects; and she is most commonly referred to as "Martha Jones". ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. You took the worms right out of my moth. Rodhullandemu 19:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Amy's viewing of previous companions

I would argue that the scene included on the Series 5 DVD boxset in which Amy views images of previous companions should be mentioned in the relevant articles for several reasons:

1. It's consistent with how the articles are written. They mention other instances where this has happened (i.e. Logopolis, Resurrection of the Daleks) and this one is especially relevant as it's the first time many of these companions have been seen/referenced in the new series.

2. I don't think the argument that the scene is not notable because it was never transmitted holds water. By that same logic, any information contained in Shada is similarly irrelevant.

3. The scene uses the images of past companions to prove Amy's point as it were. Therefore, it sums up the whole history of the Doctor and his female companions in a nutshell. That, I think, is significant enough to warrant a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slughorn42 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Slughorn42 (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Flashbacks are rarely, if ever, notable for inclusion; they are trivial unless omission is detrimental to the story.

2. Notability is determined by real-world coverage. Shada has gained notability by being published about it by reliable sources. Not a single outside source has mentioned the untransmitted scenes. Until they do, anything here is based on original research.

3. See point 2 regarding original research; it is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine significance, it is our job to verify significance by checking sources. These kind of facts you want to include are more suited for a more fan-driven wiki, like the Tardis Index File, where notability is generally not a requirement. — Edokter • Talk • 02:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Title

She becomes a Doctor, assumedly of Medicine. Should this be mentioned in her infobox? Samjohn95 01:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Marriage to Mickey

At the end of the Television section it states that "In The End of Time (2010), it is revealed that Martha has married Mickey Smith instead of her previous fiancé" but since there's no indication as to when the scene of Martha and Mickey it's possible that Martha still married her previous fiancé, divorced or lost him and then married Mickey afterwards.

I propose the line be adjusted to "In The End of Time (2010), it is revealed that at some point in the future Martha has married Mickey Smith" until it's definitively established just when she started having a relationship with Mickey, cheating hussy that she is. >D
- Jezebel1669 (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this turn of phrase was based on the assumption that the series is happening "in real time" and so only one year has passed between Journey's End and the End of Time. I guess it is perilous to assume anything time-related in Doctor Who. I have reworded it slightly. Mezigue (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Martha Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifmagazine.com/feature.asp?article=2267
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/ebooks/human_nature/adaptation.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2007/12/08/41443.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061104231040/http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article1919243.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article1919243.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2007/07/02/46692.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifmagazine.com/feature.asp?article=2267
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223121453/http://www.fearnet.com/news/b14762_exclusive_eve_myles_director_euros_lyn.html to http://www.fearnet.com/news/b14762_exclusive_eve_myles_director_euros_lyn.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Martha Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929124359/http://www.newsarama.com/Comic-Con_07/IDW/Who.html to http://www.newsarama.com/Comic-Con_07/IDW/Who.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070204055458/http://www.thenewspaper.org.uk/film/pg000900.php to http://www.thenewspaper.org.uk/film/pg000900.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)