Talk:Rose Tyler/Archive 1

Archive 1

Uniquely?

Okay, so of course she's probably going to turn out the best-written companion, but it's not entirely unique for the episode to be told from their point of view. Structurally, Ian and Barbara are the main characters of An Unearthly Child, after all.

Never happened again, mind, I agree there...

Angmering

• slaps forehead* You're quite right. I was actually thinking about that but forgot when it came down to writing that line. Amended. --khaosworks 22:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spoilers for new series

Here's as good a place as any to discuss this. I've watched the leaked version of "Rose" and am able to expand on Rose's entry a bit, but I think we should include a spoiler warning in her entry before we do this. I won't add the additional material until after the series debut on BBC on March 26. One question is that the episode also gives some detail on the Nestene as well - do we put spoiler warnings on any new info that may arise from the new series in the other articles? -khaosworks 08:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I notice that VampWillow has taken the plunge and added some of Rose's background. How much spoilerage are people willing to tolerate? I could very well spill the beans on what happens in Rose (in fact, I've got the episode synopsis ready to go), but should I wait until March 26? --khaosworks 17:24, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added the store details and gym bit as they are 'background' rather more than storyline-related 'spoiler'. The way the BBC have been showing clips on the main evening news as well as on kids programmes suggests that some items can certainly be considered as 'out there' sufficiently already. I suspect a number of people have episode details (and continuity errors!) ready to roll though ;-P --Vamp:Willow 21:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cool. I just corrected the Regent Street wikilink, though. There's no Regent Street (London) entry. --khaosworks 22:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(scratch that - didn't check fully before replying) --Vamp:Willow 00:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do we need to describe every episode? It's getting a bit wordy -- and quite "spoilery". Besides, if we describe everything Rose does in her travels with the Doctor, we'll be adding a new paragraph every week!

I think we need to concentrate on what makes Rose a unique companion. We're nearly there: No other companion has ever altered time for personal gain. But I still think that the description of "Father's Day" is too long and contains too many details.

(Note: I haven't simply changed it myself because I don't want to start an edit war... and because I'm not quite sure what should go in and what should be removed. I may propose something later in the week.) Ravenswood 22:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Updating the article as new aspects of the character emerge is part of the fun. Check articles based upon, for example, characters from Alias or Star Trek: Enterprise and you see that things are added on a regular basis. Every so often things need to be condensed a bit, but otherwise so long as a spoiler warning is present, I see no reason why we can't describe major aspects of her travels with the Doctor, and, yes, update every week if someone wants to do that. One of the major aspects of Wikipedia is it is never supposed to remain static. I agree that we could add more about what makes her unique, being careful to retain NPOV, of course. 23skidoo 23:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Although as Ravenswood correctly points out, every episode is a bit excessive. Hopefully my edit down is not too much of a cull, as I tried to retain the focus on her and what she learns rather than her experiences. --khaosworks 00:26, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. The Trek bios don't go episode by episode, either. Although in Doctor Who's case we're only talking about a half dozen episodes so far, so it's difficult not to do a "play by play" in her case. 23skidoo 02:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Accent

Are those dulcet tones Piper's real voice, or is she putting on the Mockney? Very harsh on the ears, I found. –Hajor 17:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's slightly exaggerated, but from the interviews I've seen, yes, it's her voice. --khaosworks 17:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gordon Bennett. Stone the crows. Thanks for the info. –Hajor 17:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I rather like it. 12.76.66.126 20:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivial information, Superphone

Here's some info that really doesn't belong here. In fact, it may not belong anywhere.

• Rose is not the first companion to have a communications device supercharged by the Doctor. In "The Three Doctors", the Second Doctor juices the Brigadier's walkie-talkie so he can communicate with his men from inside the black hole.
• In "Scream of the Shalka", the alternate Ninth Doctor carries a cell phone which is "part of the TARDIS". Ravenswood 23:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I've stuck it in a note under The End of the World. --khaosworks 00:33, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Middle name

I'm not disagreeing with the recent deletion of Rose's middle name as we should stick to on-screen canon for such things, but I'm trying to remember if the name is actually said in the "Father's Day" episode. Does anyone recall a middle name being mentioned in that episode? 23skidoo 22:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not remember any name other than "Rose" being applied to the baby. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right. If there was any logical time to mention her middle name, it would be then. The memory cheats! (Oh for the day when we lowly North Americans get the DVDs for the new series...) 23skidoo 03:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the latest Doctor Who magazine and in the annual, I assumed this as proof. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leonardo2505 (talk • contribs) 12:35, February 6, 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that not everyone agrees on whether non-broadcast sources are canonical. Personally, I think we should leave the middle name mention where it was (in "Other appearances"), rather than include it at the top of the article, but others may disagree. Let's talk it over. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Marion? I can remember it being mentioned but I'm not sure if it was her.--°wɧoɳɪvɛʀsɜ 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Phone number

Per the Wikiproject main page (see the "Canon or not?" section), it is not correct to list Rose's speculated phone number as a fact, since it is mentioned in a novel which is located in a grey area of canon. Plus we don't know if, in the Doctor Who universe, phone numbers work the same way as they do in real life. Until Rose recites her phone number on TV, this can only be trivia and marked as potentially non-canon, so I moved it and marked it accordingly. 17:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC) [23skidoo forgot to sign]

Beg pardon, I must have dropped 3 ~'s instead of 4. 23skidoo 19:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the canon note as it's already in the preceding section. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Ofcom numbers, but if we're going to mention the hypothetical Ofcom number based on the reference in The Monsters Inside, I prefer the previous version that I've just restored to the slightly defensive one that preceded it. Opinions are welcome on whether it should be included in the article, and if so how much detail is needed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I still think it needs to be repeated both for this item and the trivia item preceding it that it's not considered canon in any event. Has anyone dialed the number to see if it's genuine? I agree with Josiah that the previous version was not only rather defensive, but it also was somewhat POV as well. 23skidoo 18:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not genuine, that's the bloody point. It is set aside for use in TV programs in the UK, like a 5-5-5 number in the US.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

If that's the case then there is really no point in even including this piece of trivia since we certainly don't do that for the hundreds of shows that use 555. So I've removed it. Please don't get defensive if someone takes issue with an edit. 23skidoo 01:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to say that I think the note is unnecessary: It's a relatively obsure bit of trivia that's potentially non-canon. We're not the Discontinuity Guide (which already exists [1], and it's quite good).--Sean|Black 07:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll add my two cents: I don't feel strongly one way or the other about the note: I don't think that the article is harmed or helped by its inclusion. It's pretty trivial, even for trivia. However, I will say that I'm pretty tired of this edit warring, both on the part of TheDoctor10 and those who are responding to him. The issue should have been brought back here before we got anywhere near 3RR. C'mon, people: consensus! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I ultimately feel the same way - but I'm even more disappointed with TheDoctor10 for this because he knows this is not the way to go, as he's already been blocked for edit warring before. I honestly thought he was getting better, but he's reverting to his earlier behaviour. Be that as it may, I'm wondering if there's a way to include this information that will satisfy both sides: the 020746 number is trivial, and the fact that it's in the NDA even more so and should be removed, but it might be notable that the same number crops up both in Rose and Aliens of London. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

If the full number was visible in those two episodes, then it can at least be considered canon, but it's still a piece of information that's simply too trivial for trivia unless it actually is used as a plot device of some sort. 23skidoo 06:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

As I stated in the style guide when I first drew it up, canonicity isn't the criterion: notability is. It's simply that we cite our sources and note the dodgy areas where people may not treat that information as canon. The fact that the number in Monsters Inside is non-canonical is a red herring as different people have different definitions of canon; the question to be determined by consensus is whether or not such a fact is notable. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. He's really pushing this thing (the whole "I'm right and I'm going to keep adding it back, no matter what" thing, that is), though.--Sean|Black 22:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

That's certainly true. But I'd like to hope that we could convince him to stop the edit warring instead of just giving him the smackdown. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

As do I, and I sincerely hope that I have not been doing that. If I have, then I apologize profusely to everyone involved.--Sean|Black 05:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Similarly it's not my intent to give a "smackdown" either on this, which is why I pointed out the 3RR danger rather than do a block for violating it. It's really too minor a point. But I do think some sort of consensus needs to be reached -- if not here then on the Wikiproject page -- regarding where to draw the line. It's the same as including in a trivia note that Peri Brown has blue eyes. It really adds nothing to the "knowledge base" regarding the character or the franchise. 23skidoo 05:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I don't want to be seen as advocating special treatment for TD10, but he's shown himself to be... shall we say sensitive? protective? about his contributions — some of which are valuable. In this case, two editors had expressed the opinion that the note should be removed, one had promoted it, and two (Khaosworks and myself) had not stated a clear opinion, but had arguably shown some tacit approval by polishing the edit. That wasn't a consensus yet, and so I think that the note was removed just a bit prematurely — a bit of patience might have prevented this latest skirmish. (I still have no strong opinion one way or the other about the note itself — and it does look now as if a majority of editors think it's non-notable, which judgment I respect. I'm just saying that it pays to be considerate, even of those who have been difficult to work with in the past.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. And I'd like to apologize again, both to TD10 and the entire Wikiproject, if my behaviour has been in any way disruptive.--Sean|Black 06:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your apologies, but I still think that it ought to be included. I can, if you like, get several people to email you to shaw that they approve of the edit.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Astroturfing or sockpuppetry (or meat puppetry if you prefer) won't convince anybody. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you just confirm that you are accusing me of dishonesty, Khaosworks? I never said I'd sockpuppet, I said I would get genuine human beings (different people) to email you. If you are accusing me of lying, I shall make a formal complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 13:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, go and read the definitions. I'm saying that getting a bunch of people to mail Sean about how your addition is true and good isn't going to amount anything. Convince establishbed editors on Wikipedia, then we'll talk. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Going to look at the definitons has nothing to do w/ it. I said that I would find as many people as you want who will form a consensus for the 'phone number being included, and you accused me of planning to pretend to be that many people. If you can't accept that you accused me of dishonesty, then just sod off.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 17:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If you don't have the ability or the will to comprehend that I did not accuse you of dishonesty, then I can't help you. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, finally, does it matter that much? Will it affect you adverseley to have a piece of info in the article that you don't like? I've put it back.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 17:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Just because it's personal for you, don't assume that it's personal for other editors. It shouldn't be personal for any of us — it should be about the quality of the article. We all use our judgment about what's notable and what isn't, and the majority rules. That's how Wikipedia works. If you want to bring your friends in to join in the project, and they make worthwhile contributions — just as you have, on several occasions! — then their opinions can be considered as well, just as yours is. But bringing non-contributors in solely for the purpose of altering a consensus is called meat puppetry, and the Arbitration Committee has ruled against it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that TheDoctor10 has reverted the edit again -- and has once again violated 3RR. Since I am involved to an extent in this argument I will not do a block for this, however the editor in question does run the risk of being blocked by a neutral party if this is noticed. 23skidoo 18:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll let it go (because he knows that it's against the rules), but if someone wishes, they can report it at WP:AN/3RR.--Sean|Black 22:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking of starting an article just about this section of this talk page. Do you people realize that you generated over a full page of discussion on whether the alleged pretend phone number of a character on a TV show should be included in an article? I especially like the way some people felt that it was such an important cause, that they risked being banned to try to include it in the article. Thanks for the self esteem boost, guys.  ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Penismightierthanthesword (talk • contribs) 13:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your comments otherwise it's hard to take them seriously. In any event, the actual discussion of the phone number is minor as it became more a discussion of user behavior (and if you do a little research you'll see it has moved into another forum). 23skidoo 19:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

23skidoo's right, the conversation was really about the user's behaviour — but penismightierthanthesword is right, too. It's pretty ridiculous that we all had to spend this much time on such an incredibly trivial point. It's always good to get some perspective. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"Oh my God, I'm a chav!"

While I certainly appreciate that we want to avoid episode-by-episode summaries here, I wonder if there's a way to incorporate Cassandra's takeover of Rose's body briefly in the article. The main arguments for doing this are that in New Earth Davies used Cassandra to comment on some of the public reactions to the character of Rose, specifically some critics' perception of her as low-class and the considerable appreciation of Ms. Piper's physical charms from some members of the public. While I don't think we need to include all of Cassandra's barbs ("nice rear bumper!"), it might be good to show how the programme is humorously alluding to audience and critical reaction. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Then the significance — and focus — should be not that Cassandra took over Rose's body, but that Davies wanted to use it to comment on the public reaction to Rose's character. In which case it (a) needs to be properly cited that Davies intended it as such and (b) probably better suited for a note in New Earth. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough — although I don't think a) is achievable. It may be OR-ish, but it seems obvious to me that the reason "Oh my God, I'm a chav!" is funny is the class difference between Rose and Cassandra. We already address Rose's class status in the article (with the reference to the council estate), but I thought it might be noteworthy to see how the programme itself has dealt with the matter. Oh, well — perhaps there isn't a suitable way. It'll be interesting to see how Rose interacts with royalty in Tooth and Claw, though... :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's funny to me because in The End of the World Cassandra was quite obviously a pretentious jerk (with our present information, even in five billion years, only a pompous windbag could mistake an iPod for some jukebox, or vice versa. Same with the ostrich). Clearly Cassandra is an insecure poser, which, given the equivocation (at least where I'm from) of chavs with posers, makes her a sort of a chav to begin with! For this reason, I also think the chav thing does much better in Cassandra's entry. 12.76.66.126 20:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevance

Thanks to whomever deleted my tangent about suppressed desires. That isn't technically her personality (it's her id) and if we were to do a whole section on Suppressed Desires Rose Tyler May Possibly Entertain, it is bound to turn out interesting but not very relevant. A List of Fictional Characters With Freudian Tendencies would be far too long.12.76.67.243 20:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Fan reaction

Is this worth mentioning? Whilst most fans were keen on Rose in season 1, there seems to be a growing movement of fans who have now changed opinions over the course of season 2. The chief criticisms tend to be the characters habit for always starting off situations with an attitude that seems ignorant (laughing, cracking jokes, etc) and the fact she's become extremely possesive of the Doctor. I think there's enough fans feeling this way to mention a rise and decline in her popularity --HellCat86 02:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty is verifiability and original research. Where exactly are these criticisms arising? How widespread are they? How noticeable are they? Have they been reported in the fan or mainstream press? If so, where? "Enough fans" is horribly subjective, unless you can point somewhere where this is actually said. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Very fair points. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting a section that talks about hatred of the character but one that mentions she was generally popular in the first season but her popularity is declining now for specific reasons. Other articles on Wikipedia covering fictional things have done similar. If it's felt this is inapropriate, I'll completly understand --HellCat86 14:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Understood, but I still think that this stuff needs to be verifiable, other articles notwithstanding (if they do this, I don't think they are following policy, other). So I would still say that it's not appropriate unless a source can be cited. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's time to re-examine this issue. By now there should be enough information available to make an entry on fan reaction to this character. Certainly her reappearance in the final stories of the fourth season generated enough reaction to warrant inclusion. Lighthope (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we add episode by episode summaries?

I am asking what is in the topic title for a reason. That is that there are summaries until Tooth and Claw, where it stops. Also, there is a speculation bit in the last few paragraphs that can be got rid of when Season 2 finishes, as all will be revealed. I actually now what happened, but will not divulge it unless requested. :)

SSJ Undertaker 19:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No. The purpose of the history section is not to detail every episode and every event, but significant things that happen to her. Tooth and Claw is mentioned because of the knighthood, not because it's just an episode. After that, the next major development is the finale. So all is well. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's alright then, I was just wondering what you were doing by way of history. SSJ Undertaker 09:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be alot of detail regarding the first episode. Is this necceserry? JameiLei 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say yes - the episode is about her; it's there that most of her character is set up. Percy Snoodle 11:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Damaged Goods

Of course the Tylers aren't related to Damaged Goods people. Please agree. (By the way, I didn't mean to un-enter the Life on Mars bit). --Thelb⁴ 19:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Too tired.

I agree that there's no evidence to suggest a relationship (aside from the rather tenuous detail that both Tyler families live in London council estates), and the text shouldn't suggest that there is. Some people (unfamiliar with Damaged Goods) might have read "the Tyler family" as a reference to relatives of Rose, so I've changed that to "a family named Tyler". With that emendation, there's no need to specify anything more about the relationship or lack thereof. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Coming back?

Did not know where else to ask this, but is there any chance she might appear in another episode? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.22.69.162 (talk • contribs) 20:29, February 9, 2007 (UTC)

As far as we know, there are no plans for Rose to return, but in a recent interview (here) Billie Piper said, "There's always the chance that Rose may return. You never know - that's the beauty of sci-fi!" I wouldn't expect it this year, but they might try bringing her back as a plot twist in a few years, or for some anniversary special. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dalek356: I have noticed somthing, in the new series 3 (Exept from episode 1, as like every other series), the name Rose has been mentioned, there is also a mention of "He is not alone", by The Face Of Bo, that is followed by the confidential episode, where at the end Tennent says "He is right, and he is wrong", might that mean that he is right i.e. The Master and he is wrong, Rose. Also the Doctor never gives up hope and keeps himself "pure", and not exepting Marther. On top of all this the Daleks use "emergancy temporal shift", meaning they travel beetween dimentions. This must mean they open a small rip between worlds, as mentioned in Army of Ghosts, meaning there might be a portal between the universes, and as Rose now works at Torchwood, the best place in the univerese for alien tech. that might mean that she goes through and joins the Doctor. Want more proof, well it is also said that the last two episodes of series 3 The Sound of Drums and The Last of the Time Lords is set in the present year, as was Doomsday (Doctor Who), as Rose is in on parrallel earth. Does this mean she is back in series 3? That will be answered soon...

Well, we know now that she has come back, do we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.84.182 (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Rose's age

I've removed an excellent piece on Rose's age. This belongs somewhere, but on Wikipedia it's original research and we don't do that here. I would suggest that the piece could be transferred from the article history by anybody (not just the original author(s)) to the TARDIS website at wikia:tardis:Rose Tyler. It's quite okay to copy stuff to that site as long as you say it's from Wikipedia. They have exactly the same GFDL free license as ours and it permits free copying and modification. --Tony Sidaway 02:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You're such a fascist crusader. Get a clue, everything in this section was not unsourced and was not speculation, the farking episodes contained all the information and were sourced clearly. What's next, deleting the UNIT dating controversy, which is long and worked on by hundreds, and linked to from dozens of articles? Keep it up, this unilateral action that effects many users will get you slapped with a third request for comment, and you'll go down like Kelly Martin in the userbox firestorm. -- AvatarMN 09:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but under Goodwin's law you lose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.142.215 (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Appearances

That big long list is really ugly. Couldn't you just put Season 1 and Season 2, or issues 1 - 13, instead of listing every single episode. Paul730 00:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We could, if people agree with your assessment that it's ugly and unnecessary. Personally, I think that a complete list of appearances adds encyclopedic value, but if there's a conensus against such lists I won't oppose it. On the other hand, if there's no consensus against it, I'd like to remove the tags on that section. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Paul: there is no need for every title to be listed; series numbers should be sufficient, and encyclopaediac enough. Gwinva 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How does it look now? I've condensed the list of television appearances into prose, but the lists of novels and comics appearances remains. I'd like to keep that, as it's content not found in any other article. What do others think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, prose works well, I think. I've linked to the List of Doctor Who serials page, so interested readers can access the individual stories. The other lists are long, but as you say, they're not listed elsewhere specifically, although they are present on Ninth Doctor and Tenth Doctor pages, again quite clumsily. Why don't we have a non-tv appearance list similar to the TV serials page, where we can list all this centrally and then we can remove the clumsy lists from the character pages and just link in a similar way as you've done with the TV stuff. Keeps it all together, and provides a better format for discussing them from an out-of-universe perspective. I know there's pages for New Series Adventures and whathaveyou, but as you say, there's no real source to see it all together. Just a thought. Gwinva 04:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well that would work for some of the appearances, such as for example the novels. For the New Series Adventures, the books are released in sets which follow the continuity of the TV series, but other book lines were more haphazard. Consider Sarah Jane Smith: she's appeared in a bunch of novels which were published over more than a decade, with lots and lots of novels not featuring her interspersed. Several of them are set after her time with the Doctor, so a link to a page like Doctor Who story chronology wouldn't work either. I don't see how a non-TV appearance list could be applied in a case like that. Similarly, the comics don't necessarily feature the characters in neat sequential packages. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the more I think about it, the more problematic it seems...oh well. Gwinva 04:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Redundant sections

Having a character history and an appearances section is redundant. Wikipedia articles are not a plot resource for reading about the character's fictional life. The two should be merged. See Jack Harkness for a good example of how a Doctor Who character article should be written, or Jason Voorhees, Padmé Amidala, and Jack Sparrow for fictional characters in general. Rose appears in several media, so her appearances should be split into "Television" and "Literature". Canon is irrelevant; she still appeared in novels no matter whether it's "real" within the Whoniverse. The same goes for all fictional character articles, not just this one. Paul730 12:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Why do most of the references end with Event occurs at Noon. “Fred”? Million_Moments 20:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Because somebody messed with the "cite episode" template. I'll go fix it. --Brian Olsen 00:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew it wasn't right, I just didn't know how to fix it! Million_Moments 07:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Continuing Companions

A reference was made to Rose being the only companion who wanted to stay with the Doctor, the others being unwilling travellers.

Is this actually true ?? I was always under the impression that Jamie McCrimmon would have been a longterm Companion, but was sent back to his own time/place at the end of one of the episodes [War Games ??].

193.243.227.1 16:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, no other companion explicitly said that they wanted to stay with the Doctor forever. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Rose was the only companion who wanted to stay with the Doctor indefinitely — at any rate, several other companions hoped to travel with the Doctor for longer than they ended up doing. Susan certainly wasn't prepared to part company with her grandfather, and Sarah Jane also wasn't ready to end her TARDIS travels when the Doctor got the summons to Gallifrey. The article currently says that many of the Doctor's previous companions were unwilling travelers, which is more or less accurate. That said, the classic series didn't examine the relationship between the Doctor and his companion(s) in the same way that the new series did, so an examination of how long, say, Jamie would have stayed with the Doctor had the Time Lords not intervened would be original research, and thus beyond our purview. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Rose's return

There is a line in this stating that "Piper is now widely rumoured to be returning for a three-parter of Doctor Who at the end of Series 4." - though this is references, is'nt this specullation. The source itself notes that it is based on rumor.
"Rumors are circulating through the media of a forthcoming Doctor Who movie. Billie Piper, rumored to be set to return as Rose for series four, is now being cited as starring alongside current Doctor David Tennant in the film. "It's all been hushed up ... but yes, it's definitely happening," a source reportedly told the Daily Star. "David and Billie were a superb combination on the small screen, so it seems only right that they appear in the film."
Should we really have this in? StuartDD _{contributions} 19:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it, until someone can explain why speculation belongs on wikipedia. StuartDD _{contributions} 09:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Although it has been confirmed, and despite the "Spoilers are welcome everywhere" attitude WIkipedia has adopted, which is unacceptable (but that's a matter for another forum), I feel having such a major spoiler in the lead is simply unfair to readers. I have moved it farther down. I don't feel it adds anything to the lead because the lead states that she travelled with the Ninth and Tenth Doctors and there's no indication that she'll be travelling with another Doctor in her upcoming appearances. 23skidoo (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point - I think that's a good idea. StuartDD _{contributions} 14:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The rumours won't go away, today's Sun says that Rose is marrying the Doctor clone in the Xmas specials (and that Mickey and Martha are marrying each other), and that they still intend to make a movie starring Tennant - I wonder if he'll be playing the clone perhaps, and not the Time Lord? Digifiend (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

These two rumours don't really hang together. You either wrap up the storyline or you keep the frisson going. Ergo, Christmas wedding probably means there won't be a Tennant/Piper movie, and vice versa. Given that we're talking about perhaps the most popular Doctor and most popular companion ever, the BBC would be nuts to close off that movie option, even for Steven Moffat. Besides, no doubt by now you're aware that the wedding rumour was instigated by a fan to see how long it would take the tabloids to report it. Safest to stick with what we know, guys. It's The Sun; don't believe it! Gnostrat (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The television section says that billie is confirmed to return for three episodes where this is not true. The tabloids said that she would be in the 3 part finale and the bbc refused to comment on how many episodes she is in. So far we know she will feature in episode 11 'turn left'(from RTD's radio times synopsis) but nothing on the other episodes that follow. Its very likely she will be in episodes 12 and 13 but shouldn't we stick to facts?90.195.111.86 (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Where to put it

Currently the return info is in two places. Where should we put it? StuartDD _{contributions} 11:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

rose tyler profile image

hello all, i have previously added Image:Rose_Tyler-PIC.jpg to the article as the profile picture, however it was removed, i checked the fair use rationale and i thought that i compiled it ok. Well i have now orphaned it, and listed it to be deleted. The main point of this is to say can someone please replace the picture, I know a publicity still is better than a screenshot, but the still is 2 years old now and the screenshot shows the most recent appearance of Rose. Is there another picture that can be uploaded, which is recent? Sorry if this sounds confusing, in abit of a hurry so cannot check my english!

Purported Silence in the Library easter egg

I've removed this description of an apparent easter egg on Silence in the Library. It's an unsupported statement that encourages the user to mess with his clock settings without giving any verifiable reason to support the instructions. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Image

New Promo Pics Have Beeen Released, Of Rose, Can Someone Please Change The Pictures, If Not Then I Will Harmless 77 (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The picture already in place is fine - no need to change it. _TalkIslander 10:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

True, But Its Old, I Mean Rose Doesnt Really Look Like That Anymore! Harmless 77 (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a new image needs to be uploaded, like the one used in TARDIS wiki. User talk:Rainbow87 21:29 2nd July 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 20:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Tsk! Red link. Please fix it. How can we see the image if you haven't linked to it? Digifiend (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Record

Hasn't any reliable source pointed out she's appeared in more stories than any other character other than the Doctor? (No doubt the Master will overtake her in time.) Peter jackson (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean in the 2005-present series only. Jamie McCrimmon and Sarah Jane Smith have probably appeared in more stories overall, considering the number of episodes per series in the 60s and the fact SJ has appeared in audios and spin-offs. Digifiend (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Counting stories rather than episodes, I make it Rose 22 (23 if you count "Partners in Crime"), Jamie 22, Sarah Jane 21 (including post-2005 appearances). That's excluding Rose's brief appearances in "The Poison Sky" and "Midnight". She'll definitely have a record of some sort come the Christmas special, but I'd surprised if a third-party source reports it. Maccy69 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

But I didn't exclude brief appearances. The only objective way I can see for defining whether someone "appears" in a story is the on-screen cast list. Otherwise you have endless uncertainty about flashbacks, reprises, teasers, trailers, illusions ... Peter jackson (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1