Talk:Susan Foreman

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

Comments[edit]

I only have one question...do you stop being a grandfather (or father) just because your offspring is deceased?

Dr Constantine seemed to think so, and the Doctor was empathising. --khaosworks 09:42, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Race[edit]

It is currently unknown if Susan is actually from the race Time Lord/Lady, she could merely just be from the planet Gallifrey. Most people think that you have to attend the Academy to be a Time Lord/Lady and there is no evidence that Susan ever attended. Thus there is no real evidence that Susan is a Time Lord/Lady so it was changed to reflect that she is merely from Gallifrey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.73.234 (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I believe she should be changed to "Gallifreyan" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.169.144 (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Granddaughter[edit]

The article currently says "...Although it was never explicitly stated that she was the Doctor's biological granddaughter..." I don't think this quite is true/and/or/makes sense - surely Susan & and the Doctor explicity refer to each other onscreen as "grandfather" and "granddaughter" in virtually every story. And surely the word "granddaughter", spoken in English without further qualification, always means "biological granddaughter"? If you want to qualify it, you say "adopted grandfather" or "my stepfather's dad" etc etc. Wouldn't it be more accurate to have a sentance in the article "Although Susan continually refers on screen to the Doctor as her 'grandfather', some fans have speculated that this should not be taken literally to imply a biological relation" or somesuch?--feline1 16:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Biological granddaughter" is certainly the default meaning of "granddaughter". I also agree that the article should first reflect the clear intentions of the original production team, and deal with fans' later interpretations afterwards. I'll see what I can do. —Josiah Rowe 18:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible origin[edit]

As the Doctor stated many times before, one cannot go back in one's own personal history so this possible origin VV is impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.142.136 (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This theory has absolutely no basis and/or support, but since this theory has been discussed on several sites before, I thought I might share it.

Let's just say...hypothetically...that the Doctor and Rose Tyler have a child. Now, the depths of time and space are no place for a child, but with all of the Timelords gone, where can she go? Easy--to the last remaining timelord...HIMSELF.

So the Doctor travels back and meets with his former self (the 1st Doctor) and gives him the child. As he raises Susan, he tells her that she is his granddaughter...and because of his age, she does not question this.

If this were the case, though, we would have to assume that the Doctor knew that he would fall in love with Rose all along. Opinions? -- P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 19:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ew. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ew what? I am confusèd. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 00:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susan could hypothetically be the daughter of the Doctor's daughter from The Doctor's Daughter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, just as hypothetically, Susan could have been created from the DNA of The Doctor's Daughter (Jenny) in much the same way that Jenny was created from the Doctor's DNA... of course, as I write this, we have no idea what Jenny is up to - but the episode certainly left the character available for a return visit. On the other hand, IF either of these interesting hypotheses were true, then presumably the (first) Doctor would have been aware of Susan's origins - and so the (tenth) Doctor would have been somewhat less surprised at Jenny's appearance? This is starting to get confusing (I love this show :-) DrVxD (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fans are incorrect"[edit]

Finallycreatedaccount (talk · contribs) wrote:

"These fans are in the minority and would seem to be incorrect. As stated above, in the episode Fear Her, the Doctor reveals he was a father once. Susan would hence be the offspring of the Doctor's child or one of the Doctor's children."

My difficulties with this are several:

  • "These fans are in the minority..." - needs cite; no census has been taken, and given the popularity of the "Other" theory, this may not actually be the case.
  • "would seem to be incorrect." - This is POV, production team intentions notwithstanding (since Hinchcliffe, for one, intended there to be incarnations before the First Doctor and we know how that turned out). We should not place a definitive statement; people can figure out for themselves if this theory is incorrect.
  • "Susan would hence be the offspring of the Doctor's child or one of the Doctor's children." - Not necessarily. Although the default meaning of grandfather or father (as the case may be) is biologically, you can still be a grandfather without biological descent. People don't normally call their step-grandfathers "Step-Grandfather". In fathers by marriage, the use of "father" rather than "stepfather" is equally common, given the fairy-tale negative connocations of "step-mother". But again, this calls for a conclusion coming from the earlier "Doctor reveals he was a father once"; as the former is already mentioned, this conclusion is not necessary — the reader can figure it out for themselves. They're smart people. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For a start, the title of this section of the discussion page has taken my words out of context, with no ellipse between 'are' and 'incorrect', and implies that you are trying to inflame the discussion or provoke a reaction. Anyway, in response to your points:
  • The minority point comes from the fact that most literature, references, documentaries etc. give Susan as being the biological granddaughter of the Doctor. The 'Other' theory is irrelevant as it is non-canonical, or 'fanonical' at best. However, I must concede that I cannot provide a citation to support my claim.
  • I disagree that that is POV - 'would seem to be' covers those who disagree.
  • It is also uncommon for one to usurp one's granddfather by using this name for a following step-grandfather. Again, as you say of my earlier point 'no census has been taken', so neither of us know for sure how normal or common the use of these terms is. Whilst I take your point that the note has been made earlier and so may not require direct repetition here, I think that the speculative fan points are more worthy of removal. Why should they be included just because some fans, whom I still believe to be a minority, are uncomfortable with the idea that the Doctor has had sex? -- Finallycreatedaccount 04:37, 25 June 2006
I'm not removing it to pander to any fan sensibilites; for the record I am firmly in the camp of those who believe Susan is the biological granddaughter of the Doctor. My point is that without a cite, those statements are indeed POV. "would seem to be incorrect" is POV because it comes down on one side without mentioning the other. At best, the line should be "unclear" or "debatable" or some such to be neutral. The "Other" theory, while canonicity is unclear, is much more than fanon - it is the basis for the Cartmel Masterplan as well as the New Adventures. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the 'Other' theory non-canonical as it never came to fruition on screen, despite its links with the Cartmel Masterplan. As you mentioned earlier, Hinchcliffe intended the First Doctor not to have been the first - whilst being the theory of a programme maker this has been contridicted on screen. Whilst fan media may contradict the programme makers intentions to have Susan as the biological granddaughter, something I see you agree with, to my knowledge it has not been contradicted on screen - correct me if I'm wrong, people...I'm sure someone will find something... -- Finallycreatedaccount 16:14, 25 June 2006
Isn't it correct to say that the show has never suggested a relationship other than the stated one between Susan and the Doctor? Yallery Brown 00:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to point out, that the 11th Doctor's reply of "No" was in response to the baby Melody Pond (he speaks baby) and not to Amy's question of family - or at the very least it is purposefully ambiguous as to whether he was answering Amy or the baby...however it's pretty obviously the baby given the pains made to connect the nu-Who Doctors as the same man we have seen from Classic Who and the character of the Doctor has mentioned both having family and of course the whole Grandaughter debate. I should think that her NOT being his Grandaughter was never made explicit on screen, and as much as the actor playing a character has any clout in determining that character's fictional existence, Carole Anne Ford has always been adamant that she was the Doctor's GRANDAUGHTER and not just his first companion. signed MadProphet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.242.234 (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions in Time[edit]

Why was Dimensions in Time removed from this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ken Arromdee (talk • contribs) 07:22, August 28, 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, but it was obviously restored at some point. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on granddaughter[edit]

Considering the extremely long life that the Doctor has had, and the fact that he can almost always be found surrounded by young women, I am sure he has a plethora of children out there (acknowledged and perhaps unacknowledged). I really don't see what all the fuss is about as to whether or not Susan could be his grand-daughter or not. She says she is, he says she is, and she's the same race as he. --68.154.71.137 20:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that Occam's razor would strongly suggest that she is his granddaughter — but the problem stems from certain aspects of Doctor Who fandom and production in the 1980s. As odd as it may seem nowadays, when the Doctor "dances" with any pretty blonde who passes his way, in the 1980s it was a cardinal rule of Doctor Who, often stated by the show's producer in the press, that "there is no hanky-panky in the TARDIS". There was a widespread assumption that the Doctor was asexual, an assumption which the production team encouraged. One obvious problem with this view of the character, though, was the existence of Susan — if the Doctor has a granddaughter, then presumably he must have had sex at some point. Therefore, two different script editors came up with different stories explaining how Susan "wasn't really the Doctor's granddaughter". Lots of Doctor Who fans at the time agreed with the premise of an asexual Doctor, and so were happy to explain Susan away. Things are different now, but that's why it was historically an issue. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the whole "asexual" thing is misunderstood. Given the portrayal of the Doctor, Time Lords are far smarter than humans, far far smarter. If you think there are difficulties with a 30-year old adult having a relationship with a 20-year old, just imagine the vast difference between a 20-something and a 900-something. Since humans look like Gallifreyans, of course there could be a physical attraction. But assuming the Doctor is past the "nail anything that moves" phase most teenagers of any species should go through, he'd likely be beyond interest in a "friend with benefits." To put it in human terms, how many people would be interested in sleeping with a beautiful 20-year old woman whose mental development is the same as a five-year old? Sure, some would be interested but to me that would seem an awful lot like pedophilia.
But that's all just a canon rationalization, just like "the TARDIS being hard to fly" is the canon rationalization for why the Doctor winds up in crazy places. In reality, we know that's just because it makes for fun stories to write. The real world reason for "no hanky panky in the TARDIS" is that this isn't what the show is about. Doctor Who is about goofy fun scifi for the whole family. It has to be safe enough for parents to show the kids and well-written enough to keep the older set engaged. Who does this brilliantly. Sure, raunchy humor can be done well. I've seen excellent examples of shows aimed explicitly at being erotic, others that try to work through the emotional turmoil of realistic relationships, etc. But that's not Who. Imagine if someone took Sex and the City and threw space aliens into it. Actually, seeing the fan reaction to that would be hysterical but it would still be rude. :) --Gmuir 16:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intent[edit]

In Background is this sentence:

The original outline for the series did not intend for the pair to be related, but writer Anthony Coburn created the family tie as he was disturbed by the possible sexual connotations of an old man travelling alone with a teenage girl.

And yet, in Relationship to the Doctor, is this:

...it is clear that the original programme-makers' intent was that the two were biologically related.

These statements contradict themselves; either originally they intended her to be his granddaughter, or they didn't. Which is true? Neither have citations - Weebiloobil 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been corrected, though I don't know who by - c'est la vie - Weebiloobil (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny[edit]

In Series 4 Episode 6, We meet Jenny, who is the doctors daughter, it is unknown if she is the doctors biologoical daughter yet because the episode has not yet aired, should we add something about jenny to this article? Harmless 77 (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to wait until we learn if Jenny is Susan's mother or aunt. DonQuixote (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny isn't his daughter as such, she's cloned from his DNA. 86.135.209.39 (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously she is not a "clone", as she is not genetically identical. The doctor refers to her as his "daughter", and she refers to him as "dad", which is, at the very least, sufficient for a premise that a daughter of hers would be regarded as the Doctor's grand-daughter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if I were given the chance, I'd make sure she eventually grew up to have a little girl named "Susan" and that Jenny arranged to have Dad take care of Susan for at least a time.173.12.172.149 (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Target novelizations[edit]

I don't have any of the Target books anymore, but I remember reading one or two in the early '80s (I don't remember which story or stories, or know when the books were written) where they wrote Susan thinking of the Doctor as "the man she called Grandfather", which would imply that maybe he wasn't. Does anyone else recall anything like this? --Logotu (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC) PS: My pet theory was perhaps she was actually his daughter.[reply]

Timelords live so long that The Doctor and Susan could be brother and sister. She would just be calling him grandfather to hide the age difference from humans. Just a thought. Andrew Swallow (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably the novelisation of either the Dalek Invasion of Earth or the Five Doctors, both by Terrance Dicks. Contrary to some of the claims above the idea that Susan wasn't actually the Doctor's granddaughter has been around since at least 1972 when it was introduced in The Making of Doctor Who by Dicks and Malcolm Hulke, notably leaving her out completely in the chapter on the Doctor's origins and suggesting it was just a term of endearment elsewhere (in fact the complete lack of any mention of Susan in the War Games suggests that as early as 1969 the same authors did not feel any need to adhere to her being his actual granddaughter) and Dicks continued to push this in subsequent years in his novelisations and the script for The Five Doctors. The Making, even more than many of the actual episodes, had a massive impact when fandom started organising itself in the next few years and often became the gospel word on canon even either it contradicted stuff from before Dicks's time on the show or when subsequent episodes disagreed with it. Come the 1980s it, via a fan continuity adviser, seems to have become one of the bedrocks of continuity followed by the production office in that decade. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An Earthly Child and The Forgotten[edit]

An Earthly Child has already been released, so please don't revert that. Also, Appearances in other media is a list of appearances with occasional summaries of the appearances themselves that affect the character described within this article. Please don't revert unless you can explain why the additional detail is necessary for this article. DonQuixote (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Name of the Doctor" appearance?[edit]

Since I did the first entry back in May 2013, I thought it would be worthwhile to have discussion on whether or not the line item appears within the wiki article. I understand why we shouldn't assume the person in "The Name of the Doctor" is Susan (or the person who looks like Susan). It seems to me that argument that it is not Susan because we did not see Carole Anne Ford, this would also apply to the different "body-doubles" that are dressed in the various Doctor incarnations outfits. If we were to assume that the girl with William Hartnell's Doctor was not Susan because we did not see Carole Ann Ford's face, would we could also assume the possibility that the other Doctors are not really the Doctor. For example, maybe John Hurt's Doctor was somehow placing look-a-like Doctors for some unknown reason. But I have to believe the simpler interpretation and that is it was Susan. My vote is to keep the sentence in the article.Docob5 (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time Lord / Time Lady[edit]

Less Eric Seward's short story, it is possible that only a certain people from Gallifrey arise to the Time Lord / Time Lady status. If this is the case, then Susan may just be from Gallifrey rather than being a Time Lady. But either way is ok by me; if the article is changed back, it can remain as "Time Lady".Docob5 (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is that the race as a whole is called "Time Lords". I've changed it to "Time Lord". DonQuixote (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Could a time-travelling Gallifreyan regard 'the biological child' of a subsequent regeneration a grandchild, should they happen to cross paths? Fanficcy perhaps - but one way to 'explain' things. 128.127.29.19 (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources modified on Susan Foreman[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Susan Foreman. I managed to add archive links to 1 source, out of the total 1 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

49th century[edit]

For reference, the 49th century bit deleted today comes from the "pilot" episode, a remounted version of "An Unearthly Child". It's widely available to see on DVDs of An Unearthly Child, but it didn't air until decades after it was made, and isn't part of the episode proper as aired in 1963. TardisTybort (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely what makes it WP:OR, WP:SYNTH as well as WP:SPECULATION. MarnetteD|Talk 23:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 September 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved: malformed request Redrose64 (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{requested move/dated|Susan Foreman}}

Susan Foreman → Susan Foreman – Currently a redirect is in place so that searches for ‘Susan Campbell’ bring visitors to the article Susan Foreman. However, there is another article on Susan M. Campbell which I believe should be the one that visitors find when conducting a search on ’Susan Campbell’. Susan Foreman is a fictional character in a television programme and I think the character’s married name was Campbell, which may be why the redirect was put in place originally. However, this seems a little confusing for visitors to Susan M. Campbell. She is actually more usually known as Susan Campbell but the article title appears to have had an ‘M’ added to it when it was created to differentiate between her and the TV character. Would it be possible to have the redirect deleted? Fbell74 (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Susan Foreman. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 01:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Princess Suzanne[edit]

You can mention that Princess Suzanne was an earlier version of the character, but you cannot engage in original research. A 2020 discovery cannot have influenced a 2004 book. And you would need to cite reliable sources that make the connections between different works of fiction--we can't do it ourselves because that would be original research. DonQuixote (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about when you claim that Princess Suzanne was a "2020 discovery". It was not, it was always known that Susan was originally intended to be an alien princess - which was reworked as part of the 2004 novel. Please do not vandalise pages intentionally. Connorguy99 (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By, bad, it was 2013...from the source you cite: Mysteries of Doctor Who explained: "Unbelievably precious" Doctor Who scripts lost for 50 years discovered in Kent]. DonQuixote (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That marks the event where this information was first "discovered" by the public, it does not mean that all memory of this original concept was magically forgotten by the BBC as a whole and the reworking of the story in the 2004 novel was a fluke. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then you would need to cite a reliable source that that influenced the 2004 novel--otherwise it's unverifiable, and probably false, information. DonQuixote (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere does it need to state outright that this was intentional, just that the original concept later did happen - which it did. I can source the book for that. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everything and anything can be challenged. Tertiary sources, such as an encyclopaedia absolutely needs it to state outright that it was intentional--or a reliable secondary source has to make a connection for us. Editors can't do that because it's all too easy to stray into original research. DonQuixote (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the original scripts the Doctor's granddaughter was intended to be an alien princess called Suzanne, in the novel the Doctor's granddaughter WAS an alien princess called Zusanne. That is not a coincidence and worth a mention, I'll tag the book as the source. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a connection that you're making. It's synthesis. We would need a secondary source (not an editor) to make that connection. DonQuixote (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a connection I'm making. A connection made by the books. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can directly quote the book as saying "the 2004 book is based on an unpublished script", then it is you making the connection between the books, per WP:SYNTH. DonQuixote (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the work wasn't based on the original concept, which it clearly was, it still deserves mention to her page as this character has the exact same experiences as the First Doctor / Susan with them residing in a junkyard in London, 1963. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can move it to Other media and let the reader make the connection themselves. DonQuixote (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps you should have done that? As it was valid work all along and deserved mention, rather than deleted. And to not even say that you were deleting the work, but to pretend in the edit summaries that you were bettering it. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And where's the explanation for the removal of the President's Daughter information? Connorguy99 (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The episode doesn't make the connection between the President's daughter and Susan--so it can't be Conception and development of the character (that will be off-topic and a little dishonest). It's the novel making the connection, so it has to be Other media. DonQuixote (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the "spin-off" media have to be treated as valid? That is very subjective. The audio stories featuring Susan have been praised by the actress herself as the best work she's ever done with the character, so why does that information take a back seat? For example; why is her surname Campbell tagged with "spin-off" it's all relating to the same character. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles are primarily focussed on the television programme. The general reader doesn't have to dive into other media to understand the topic. The other media can be mentioned in their own right but, unless they affect the primary medium, that can't be said to affect the primary medium. DonQuixote (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we don't need to amalgamate all versions of the character into one character. We can list and describe each version in their respective medium individually. DonQuixote (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who has no "primary medium" so that's just wrong. The show thrived for years away from television, and Susan's appearances in alternative media far outweigh her handful of screen appearances. Who are we to say what the "general reader" is most familiar with? A fair few will only be familiar with Susan from her recent audio series! Connorguy99 (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC
Whether you like it or not, the primary medium for the general reader is the television programme. That doesn't preclude the mention of other media, though, and they're mentioned in the articles. What we can't do is treat the character as having only one version because that isn't factual. DonQuixote (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I don't like it - where is this stated? You removed any mention of Susan's appearances in Big Finish Productions from her intro because it was spin-off, but many other pages (the Master for example) have this mentioned in their intro. Connorguy99 (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can add that back if you want, it's the other stuff in that edit that I objected to. Look, the original medium is television, and when we talk of creation and development, that's what we should refer to because that's her origin. We can discuss her further development in other media, but we must be careful when we do so because there are several different versions created for the different media. We cannot say that there was a single line of evolution for the character. DonQuixote (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So... you've changed now from "primary" to "original" medium. Where does it state anywhere that only the original medium should be focused on with all other sources being shoved into an alternate section? All her subsequent appearances have... "developed" her character. You now admit that you had no objection to a mention about Big Finish in her intro, and you've also said that you think the Princess Suzanne / Doctor's Daughter can be placed in the "other media" section - so why was all of this information removed? Connorguy99 (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that me using primary and original medium interchangeably is somewhat confusing to you, but it's the consensus for a lot of the articles. See Superman where the primary medium for the article is the original medium, comics. Other media are also mentioned, and, if there's enough material, they're spun off into their own articles. DonQuixote (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is confusing, because in this situation "primary" is often used as the main / most important source - otherwise you would just say "original". And I don't believe that characters from Doctor Who are in any way similar to those from DC or Marvel. We are repeatedly told that there is no canon in Doctor Who and all sources co-exist, which is different to those other sources where their universes are individually documented. Connorguy99 (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The general reader is mostly aware of the television programme, so that is the primary meduim--which is also the original medium. Look,as I've said, we're not ignoring the other media, but we can't give them more weight than they're due. DonQuixote (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And why are you the one to make all these calls based on your own assumptions of what the general reader is most familiar with? Connorguy99 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How many nonfiction books are there for the programme? How many nonfiction books are there talking about the novels?--comics?--audio plays? That's a good scale for due weight. DonQuixote (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is it? Connorguy99 (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Due weight means that we reflect the secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that the "spin-off" mediums featuring Susan are not intended to be different versions, they are all supposed to be the same character. Like I said, far different to your example of Superman - or any other DC / Marvel character - as there's a number of well-documented universes and different versions of the same character for each. I understand why we would want to separate the television and alternate media when we're actually covering the stories, but things like her name? That's the same character, so why are we listing her as "Susan Campbell in spin-off media". And why can't we cover significant development in spin-off media in the given development section? Connorguy99 (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lungbarrow says that Susan is the granddaughter of the Other, an ancestor of the Doctor. History of Timelords says that she's the daughter of the president, a contemporary of the Doctor. So, no, they're not a single character. DonQuixote (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the Other isn't an ancestor of the Doctor - the Doctor is a genetic match of the other, re-loomed millions of years after his death and is technically therefore the Other himself. So... why can't Susan be the Other / Doctor's granddaughter and this President (the Other / Doctor's son)'s daughter? That's just an assumption you're making. Connorguy99 (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because you're the one making the claim, so the burden of responsibility is on you. That is, it's original research. You would need to verify that the Other is the President--either the primary source has to specifically say it (direct quote) or a secondary source has to make that connection. DonQuixote (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're the one making the claim that they're different versions without proof...??? You tried to suggest that Susan being the President's daughter somehow confirmed that she was a different version - when this President could always be the Other / Doctor's child and therefore disproves anything. They are the same character, Doctor Who has no canon. Connorguy99 (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being a contemporary of the Other, being a contemporary of the Doctor and being an alien princess are different things. You're making the extra-ordinary claim. You need to do the minimum amount of work and cite a reliable source, otherwise it's your fan theory, which isn't encyclopaedic. DonQuixote (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've genuinely lost me. If a novel / audio hasn't explicitly stated that they're using a different version of Susan - like the alternate universe Susan used in the 'Doctor Who Unbound' series - then it is complete speculation to suggest that they ARE different versions. So... "the burden of responsibility is on you". The only proof you have given is that Susan was said to be the granddaughter of the Other in one story and the daughter of some President in another - you claim that these contradict each other, and I have pointed out that they do not as the President could easily be the Other / Doctor's child...!
And no version of Susan was an alien princess, that was the original concept for the character - which was later reused for the Doctor's granddaughter Zezanne in a novel. However, I still believe that deserves mention due to the similarities. Connorguy99 (talk)
could easily be the Other / Doctor's child.
Nothing actually says that. The 'could easily be' is you speculating. Look, wikipedia operates by citing and summarising reliable source. In the absence of sources specifically saying something, we just state the facts and let the reader make the connections. We can state that Susan appears in this thing with this background and she appears in that with that background. We should not draw a connecting line between the two unless a secondary source does that for us, otherwise you're pushing your favourite version, which isn't neutral. DonQuixote (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you wanting me to give you a biology lesson? The Other is named as Susan's grandfather - the President is named as Susan's father. You see this as a "contradiction" and I'm telling you... it's not. While it is not *confirmed*, it still does not "prove" that each Susan is a different version - as you are hoping it does. You are trying your hardest to try and find evidence that the television Susan / alternative media Susans are different - but you wont. Connorguy99 (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, the point is that it is not confirmed. Everything in an encyclopaedia article has to be verifiable by anyone. That's the most basic rule of wikipedia. You need to be able to abide by the basic rules, otherwise you're pushing your fan theory. Wikipedia is about citing and summarising reliable sources in accordance with due weight. If you can't or won't understand that, then there's always tardis wiki or your own fan site. DonQuixote (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you unable to see how much of a hypocrite you are? It is YOU that is speculating. You are trying to suggest that the Susan who appears in media other than television is a different version. But you have NO PROOF to your claims (other than the fact that somehow having both a grandfather and a father is contradictory?). If this was a character like Dodo Chaplet I would tend to agree that the versions must be different as each of her appearances in alternative sources have been extremely contradictory - but that is not the case with Susan. Most of Susan's appearances fit in a timeline, and creatives have gone to great lengths to ensure that they don't contradict each other. Connorguy99 (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If versions of Dodo are contradictory, then versions of the Doctor are contradictory and thus versions of Susan are contradictory. That's basic logic (which is also original research on my part).
Look, just state the facts and don't make claims that aren't explicitly stated. I admit that I tried to explain the situation by assuming that you understood writing about fiction and used words and phrasing that might have been confusing, but the fact is that you're making claims that cannot be verified by anyone (which include people unfamiliar with the franchise). The conception and development of the character should only be about the television programme because that's the only thing that is documented in the sources. "Developing" the character in other media require sources that directly discuss the development of the character. We cannot draw conclusions and connect the dots ourselves because that's original research. The only thing we can do with any honesty (unless we have secondary sources discussing it) is to mention and describe her appearances in other media. DonQuixote (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Authorial intent, all of these authors clearly intended Susan to be the main Susan. That can be proved by the fact that the majority, if any, do not contradict - and you will need to find individual cases (such as the alternate Susan in 'Doctor Who Unbound' where the creator DID intend for an different version of Susan to be used). Sorry. Connorguy99 (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
all of these authors clearly intended Susan to be the main Susan
If you have to say 'clearly' rather than citing a reliable source, then it's original research. Seriously, all you need to do is cite a reliable source, otherwise it's you speculating all of this. Citing and summarising sources is the name of the game. We can only state what the sources state. We should not put two sources together and claim something that they don't explictly state (even if it's implied).
Look, I'm not saying that we can't mention any of it, but we should trim back on things not explicitly stated and write things from a real world perspective. Susan was developed in the 60s like this, she appeared in the television programme, she appeared in this novel, she appeared in this comic, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All I want to know is why you feel it necessary to force her actual name to be tagged with "in spin-off media". I can live with you forcing the development section only to be about television, even though she's getting the most development in nearly sixty years in audios at the minute. This is the same Susan as in the television, ignoring your unsupported attempts to deny that. Her name should not be tagged "spin-off media" as its all the same character. Connorguy99 (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Because it's undue weight. Most of the secondary sources refer to her as Susan Foreman--i.e., her common name. Sometimes she is referred to as Susan Campbell, but that's in the context of the spin-off medium that they're discussing. Context matters for fictional characters. DonQuixote (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason for it to be tagged "spin-off" rather than just have it as the name. Spin-off is far, far too subjective. Connorguy99 (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also you keep harping on about me being "unable" to post a source... that's because I'm not talking about individual stories at the minute? If I was talking about individual stories I could post sources till your heart was content, but I'm talking about alternative media Susan in general being the same as television. Connorguy99 (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I keep harping about you being unable to post a secondary source--nonfiction books, articles, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... you do, when I'm talking in general and not about a single story. But then again, you weren't able to post any evidence about Susan actually being a different version (other than your confusion about people having both fathers and grandfathers!). Connorguy99 (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason for it to be tagged "spin-off" rather than just have it as the name. Spin-off is far, far too subjective.
It's not subjective if that's the medium in which she's being referred to as Susan Campbell. Susan is a fictional character. She is not a real person. In the primary medium, she is only referred to as Susan Foreman--and this is reflected in the secondary sources.
Seriously, the name of the game is citing reliable sources--preferably secondary sources (primary sources can only be used to summarise it's contents and nothing else). You need to show that a 2004 novel was in any way influenced by an unpublished script. You need to show that the television programme developed Susan as the Presiden't daughter. Citing secondary sources accomplishes this. These things should be described from a real world perspective and not in-universe because that's how a general encyclopaedia is written. DonQuixote (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Spin-off" is subjective. The novels Susan was named as Campbell in were not "Spin-offs" of the main Doctor Who brand, they were published by the BBC - and were not "Spin-offs" of the television series either as they came during the gap where the television series had been cancelled and they were the only form of material in the series.
Also, if a novel like 'A Brief History of Time Lords' references Susan as the President's daughter - that's enough to make the page. Connorguy99 (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't the television programme--that's the point. Look, due weight means that this article is primarily about the television programme. Other media, such as novels, don't hold much weight because they don't compare to the programme in the sheer number of secondary sources (nonfiction works). And yes, Brief History can be mentioned (which it was), but it can't be given more weight--it cannot have been said to have continued the development of the character in the primary medium. It does not belong in the conception and development section. DonQuixote (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still not making much sense so I'll leave it there. Continue to gatekeep the page for anyone else, and I'll open the conversation again. Connorguy99 (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It makes perfect sense if you step out of in-universe thought. These are works of fiction. More nonfiction prose has been written about one medium than another. This makes one medium more important in terms of the secondary sources than other media. You think that the novels were important, good for you, and write a book or article about them so we can cite you for it. The point is do secondary sources consider them important?--if so, how much has been written about them. Citing sources is the name of the game.
I'm going to move the novels to Other media, where they belong. Note that I'm not ignoring them or excising them--they'll still be mentioned in this article but with due weight. If you can cite a secondary source that mentions anything about how these novels influenced the development of the character for the primary medium, then they can be moved back with those sources cited. DonQuixote (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder, I can live with you forcing the development section only to be about television, so that's what I'm going to do. DonQuixote (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You were always going to get your way with your aggressive approach, but I'll be watching to make sure that you don't remove the information again like last time. Connorguy99 (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cite. A. Reliable. Source. That's the minimum requirement to get 'your way'. DonQuixote (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page Gatekeeping[edit]

It seems like this page is being undergoing some gatekeeping - literally seconds after I have edited it, on two very different occasions, the same individual has swooped in and completely removed the work. All mention of Susan's original conception as "Princess Suzanne", and how this was reworked as part of a 2004 novel, and the 2015-2017 references to her as the President's daughter have all be removed without valid explanation. Also, this individual likes to think of this page as *television only* and wants any outside of television information (like her married name of Campbell) to be listed as such. Why is this? Connorguy99 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be able to handle constructive criticism, as well as avoid original research. Some of the things that you have added are unencyclopaedic and need to be reigned in. Other things need to cite secondary sources because you're making assumptions of your own (even though they might be true, they need to be verifiable). I explained why some of the things have been trimmed in the edit summaries. If you want to contest them, then do so individually so that we can reach a consensus. DonQuixote (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Constructive criticism" - that's what you call sneakily pretending to change minor things to somebody's work, while over the course of several edits removing the work in its entirety? Nothing I wrote was based on assumptions, all was correctly sourced - all was vandalised repeatedly. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, it's not always about you. As I've mentioned, you would need to cite reliable sources for some of those things. You would need to cite a source that the 2004 novel was based on an unpublished script, for one. It's the process that all edits must undergo. I'm just asking you to do a little bit of work for the things that need to be verified. DonQuixote (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What isn't always about me? I'm asking you to either engage with others, or help change the FACTUAL work, not remove it in its entirety seconds after publishing. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The factual work can stay, your unsourced interpretations and connections need to be trimmed unless you can cite reliable secondary sources that make those observations. And everything is stored in the edit history, which can be restored once you provided the secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Susan_Foreman&oldid=1207267804"