Talk:Donna Noble

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

Recreation[edit]

I think that Donna deserves her own page for the simple reason of past precedent - there's a page for the other one-story companions (Grace Holloway and Sara Kingdom). I only discovered the earlier info after I'd created the page, so if you disagree, please discuss. --El Zoof 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Oddly"[edit]

Regarding the end sentence that "oddly", the Doctor doesn't mention Donna to Martha - he only mentions Rose. This doesn't seem that odd to me, since he only travelled with Donna in the sense that they moved around a lot - not in the sense that they recreationally travelled the universe. He offered her a place on board, and she refused. It'd seem odder if he HAD mentioned her, being a bit like mentioning an ex-girlfriend to a new girlfriend and adding "oh, and there was this one girl I asked out, but she said no". Steffan Alun 11:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the shocking news...[edit]

No, really, I'm amazed this character is returning. Considering she is about to be a much more important part of the series, it would be nice if we could get the article in better shape between now and 2008. It seems a little, well, weak right now. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 01:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Personality"[edit]

I've removed the personality section, as all it was doing was providing an episode synopsis. It did not give any great insight into her character; anything that did (based on what I've seen in similar articles) would most likely be based on the author's opinion rather than the events of the episode. --El Zoof 01:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personality sections are standard for articles about fictional characters. This one certainly needs work, but should not be removed entirely. Should be possible to report factual info on character traits without it being a synopsis. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 03:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly odd note removed[edit]

I've removed this slightly odd note, since it's not terribly understandable, and borders on OR.--Rambutan (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit my wording was poor, but it definitely does not border on Original Research as the dates of birth of all Doctor and companion actors are widely available from a number of sources, including the relevant Wikipedia pages and the Internet Movie Database. Wolf of Fenric 18:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict) I think it's pointing out that Tate is older than Tennant, and that this is unusual in a Doctor/companion pairing. Which, I suppose, is true, but I'm not sure it's particularly notable. Mark H Wilkinson 18:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OR issue is that it's not been remarked on by a source, so one supporting the theory (either one specifically saying she's older, or one with their birthdates) needs to be added.-Rambutan (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, doubtless, Peter Ware will save it for a day when he's really desperate to fill space in a Trivia Fact File. He might even get it from this page -- something that worries me is that we'll one day back up the notability of a note by citing an article which got it from Wikipedia in the first place. Mark H Wilkinson 19:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age[edit]

The section about Tate's and Tennant's relative ages was recently removed by Ckatz; this is a section that has been discussed several times - the main point being that it isn't original research since it is incontrovertably true. Tate is older than Tennant, this is a first to the extent described; what's other peoples' opinions on this?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 10:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against it because it smacks of ageism and sexism. Let's try to keep the bias out. DonQuixote (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sexism?! IT makes no reference to gender... Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it weren't Tate and Tennant but rather, say, Nicholas Courtney and Tom Baker, people probably wouldn't find it as "notable". I'm just saying, be careful where you tread with this one. DonQuixote (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cut it once myself, although I've no desire to argue about it. Reason: it may be the first instance, but not the only one (Barrowman, Minogue). The more that is acknowledged, the farther afield we get from the subject at hand, which is Donna (who is centuries younger than the Doctor!), and the less notable the first instance becomes. Also, trying to explain all this in the article seems to lead inevitably to some rather awkward prose. But if the consensus turns out to be otherwise, it's no big deal to me. :) -- Karen | Talk | contribs 06:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to DonQuixote's comment above, you picked a bad example as the Brig may or may not have been ever considered a companion and if he was, he was never a companion to the Fourth Doctor, but to the older Third Doctor. Otherwise, find me a male actor who played a companion who was older than the leading man at the time of his companionship (for lack of a better term) and let's cite it. IMO it is not sexism in any way to cite Donna as the first older-than-Doctor companion because if, lets say we find out that Frazer Hines was remarkably well preserved in 1966 and was in fact older than Pat Troughton, then I'd lead the charge to make the correction. (BTW it's been pointed out that Barrowman is older than Tennant; this is true, but during his initial companion tenure he was younger than Eccleston, so he doesn't count. And Donna predated his return, anyway, assuming that we're going to follow precedent (Sara Kingdom, Grace Holloway) and assign Donna companion status for Runaway Bride, not just season 4. 23skidoo (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it because it is uncited, it is OR (as we've had to do the math), and (most importantly) it is trivial. Who cares which actor is older - and given the above example of Eccleston vs. Tennant with regards to Barrowman, it becomes even less relevant. (And I'm not even taking into account the "assign Donna" bit - isn't that the BBC's job?) --Ckatzchatspy 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Granted the Brig may not be considered a companion to some, but to use the weaselly "at the time of his companionship" is just a way of twisting the words in order to justify something objectionable--especially considering that Tegan appeared in only one serial of the Fourth Doctor's as well yet she's considered a companion of both him and the Fifth. Look, the point is that Tate isn't a woman in her twenties and this is why some might find this bit of trivia notable whilst others might find such trivia quite offensive. I'm just pointing this out and saying that we should be careful to avoid the latter because, really, this is just a bit of trivia that's about as trivial as listing her measurements. DonQuixote (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indent)The age thing has re-emerged, having just been added to articles for Barrowman, Tate, Minogue, Gerald Flood, and their related characters, as well as the "Companions" article. I've since removed the text, as it is still trivia (and also essentially cut-and-paste text.) --Ckatzchatspy 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, remove it on grounds of trivia - that I can handle. But to be accused of being ageist? I'm sorry, someone needs to check their definitions...To simply note one person is older than another is not showing prejudice. And the sexism thing is just ridiculous. I find that a personally offensive attack to be accused of being prejudiced especially when absolutely no prejudice was shown. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reiterate, some people find may this bit of trivia interesting whilst others might find it quite offensive for the very reason that it's analogous to listing a woman's measurements. I'm just cautioning you lest you meet someone who is rather passionate about this. DonQuixote (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So are you now going to every page detailing a living person on Wikipedia and giving the same warning? Should all date of births be removed from Wikipedia? No. This is not ageism and I think your concern is somewhat deluded. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ageism in the sense that it's about a person's age. It's ageism as it pertains to sexism. If it weren't for the fact that she was a woman, this bit of trivia probably wouldn't seem so notable. Please try to understand how someone might feel when they come across this bit of trivia being quoted as being notable. DonQuixote (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have added this information irrespective of the genders involved as I did on Gerald Flood's page, etc. If it's not ageism, it's not ageism. And it's not sexism as I wrote the same for the male actors as I did for the female actors. I think it's quite patronising to assume that a woman reading that Catherine Tate is older than David Tennant might offend or outrage them in some way. I do not understand your grounds for claiming this is a sexist remark. It's sexist just to highlight the female actors, (Catherine Tate and Kylie Minogue), involved and not to leap to the unneccessary defence of Gerald Flood and John Barrowman. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quickly checking the edit history, I see that you've added the notes to Gerald Flood and John Barrowman on the 17th and 18th--after I pointed out how sexist it was to single out Catherine Tate. Oh wait, found one that predates that--Kamelion was edited in July. Wasn't that about the time Tate was announced? Up till now I just assumed it was an honest mistake, a simple faux paus, but you're starting to cast doubts on that.
Look, the point is that it was a small error. Everyone makes mistakes, so don't take it too personally. I wasn't casting judgment on you--hell, I was only criticising the statement in-and-of-iteself. I'm just saying that some people will find this little tiny thing offensive because Tate was noted first (and then all the males were retroactively included), so be careful. DonQuixote (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have said all I am going to say on this matter on DonQuixote's talk page and will make no further comments on this matter, especially not on this page as I see no point in furthering a circular argument, especially on this page which should be left for discussion of the content of the Donna Noble article. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sinister[edit]

Removed the word sinister from "even if it means battling Miss Foster and her army of sinister Adipose." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.88.191.99 (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that this is what edit summaries are for, correct?


DarkestMoonlight (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Since you want to debate the use of the word Sinister, I'll go ahead and point out how wrong you are. In the alternate time line surrounding Donna, where the Doctor had died, the Adipose killed 60 million Americans. That's pretty f'ing sinister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.122.170.66 (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Adipose wernt sinister they where just being born Miss Foster was sinister because she knew it would kill 60 million americans so it should go in frount of her name ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, the Adipose themselves weren't sinister. They were pretty damn cute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladylovedisdain (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding spin-off media[edit]

To get things straight, she isn't in the IDW comics nor the Decide Your Destiny books (as yet) and the first wave of 2008 books including the Quick Reads novella still feature Martha. BUT, the September wave are confirmed to feature Donna and Pest Control, the audio book, also features her. This needs to be communicated in the article with perhaps a reference to say that Martha's departure wasn't revealed to the writers soon enough for them to change the stories (which I believe was the case) Clockwork Apricot (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We know when Donna's leaving[edit]

It's Journey's End. Tate has said she's not doing any of the 2009 episodes, hence she is leaving at Journey's End. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.229.160 (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She'll be killed off. In Turn Left, Rose will tell Donna she's going to die (scene was in next time teaser at end of Midnight episode). Digifiend (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know that that is technically true - never trust the next episode trailers! ~~ [Jam][talk] 12:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! Rose 'died' in earlier season.EoinMahon (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But both Rose (the way she reacted when Donna seemed pleased that she wouldn't die) and River Song (knew of Donna, but didn't recognise her) have hinted at Donna's death. The Journey's End sypnosis mentions that a companion is prophetised to die as well. Digifiend (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was Caan who made this prophecy, and he's been correct in all his other ones to date too. Although actually, he doesn't say who it is who dies, just a faithful companion, if I remember correctly (which is doubtful at this hour) Crew-she-a-tum (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as it turns out, Caan was partly lying. The death referred to turned out to be the wiping of memories. So in a sense, Donna has died, and she has certainly left - probably without chance of a return like Rose and Martha. Fish. (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the Doctor said to Slyvia Noble and Wilfred Mott: "That version of Donna is dead" - she effectively reverted to how she was before the events of The Runaway Bride. Digifiend (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to cause a massive argument [Donna's race][edit]

But should her race say "Part human, part Time Lord", as in Journey's End...? I mean, same as Jenny, really... LuGiADude (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Edit: Fix'd. If you want to discuss please discuss here. LuGiADude (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. At first I thought the Doctor changed her back to human but he obviously can't do that.Seriphyn (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She never was a Time Lord, she only had the mind of a Time Lord. She was always Human (like Rose). — Edokter • Talk • 14:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I expected to see "Race: Ginger" :) --Jenny 14:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the last episode, the DoctorDonna said "Half human half timelord" as a biological blah blah, so that means it was a physical effect. So should it say "Half human half Time Lord"? LuGiADude (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is she still that way, was it physical, or just the Doctor's knowledge? If we have to speculate, we can't include it. --Ckatzchatspy 19:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To which the Dcotor said: "A Human with a Time Lord brain". In any case, it was temporary, so it should defenitely not say "Time Lord" in the infobox. — Edokter • Talk • 20:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something along the lines of "Human (former Human/Time Lord hybrid)" might be appropriate, given her status during "Journey's End".Captain Seafort (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a temporary plot-device. It really shouldn't belong in the infobox. — Edokter • Talk • 20:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she's a human who was temporarily infected by David "Mad Scottish Time Lord" Tennant's motormouth virus, and must spend the rest of her life in purdah. She'll be back. ;)--Jenny 20:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since we seem to have returned to this topic, my opinion is that she should be listed as "Human", since that was clearly her race for the majority of her time on the series.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we list characters' status as "alive" or "dead" based on their latest/last appearance, though all of them were alive for the majority of their time on the show! The current assertion in the article is that Donna has "no Time Lord traits" – that is clearly not correct and being so blatantly wrong is all that exempts it from being original research! I would suggest listing the race as "Time Lord-Human metacrisis" since that is the description the Doctor gave and it is the last known state she was in. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 19:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That power surge you show a picture of was clearly stated by the Doctor to be a "defense mechanism" he added when wiping her mind. I'd prefer "metacrisis" to half-and-half, but they said there's never been a Time Lord-human metacrisis, because there can't be -- therefore, I'm not sure that's still her status. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know what the Doctor said – OK, it's a defence mechanism. It's still not something that someone who is 'simply a normal human' can do! (Or at least it's never happened on BBC Parliament while I've been watching...) If you give me a moment, I'll look up the precise phraseology used in the episode. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 19:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the script it says... Rose—But how come there's two of you? Doctor—Human biological metacrisis. [...] You're part Time Lord... Donna—Part Human! Oh yes! That was a two-way biological metacrisis: half Doctor, half Donna! [...] Doctor—There's never been a Human-Time Lord metacrisis before now. And you know why. Donna—Because there can't be. The inference is that the "can't be" is simply a reference to the fact that it is fatal, not any suggestion that it's impossible. Therefore, I propose that the article lists her as "Human-Time Lord metacrisis" which is her last known state (the Doctor simply wipes her mind rather than changing her biology at the end of the episode)... ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 19:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I can live with that. Anyone else? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well...it could be argued that during most of her appearances she was human, just like during most of her appearances she was Donna Noble and not Donna Temple Noble. DonQuixote (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that the counter-argument would be that the change in her species had serious significance to the overall plot, whereas change in her surname was of extremely minor importance... ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 22:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was of the opinion that she was "half Time Lord" only in that she had gotten "the best part of the Doctor... his brain". Her lack of Time Lord physiology is what meant she could not sustain the knowledge and her (biologically human) brain would burn up. Anyway, in all but two stories she is undebatably just human. I don't think fictional characters should be listed in infoboxes as alive or dead, either, because they are fictional. The compromise (if TreasuryTag cannot be persuaded to keep it at "Human") would be not to list anything in the infobox (what's it worth, other than being contentious? The lead section can describe it just as well). TreasuryTag, does that sound ok to you? :) ~ZytheTalk to me! 01:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK with me that we omit information for the sake of a quiet life? No, of course not. I don't see what's confusing—the Doctor clearly stated that she was a "Human-Time Lord metacrisis" and that is evidently what she should be listed as. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 07:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great gravy, TT, nobody's suggesting censorship here -- all we're suggesting is that we list Donna as the race that she was for the vast majority of her time on the show.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Because I thought Zythe (talk · contribs) just suggested that we not list anything in the infobox... in fact, I'm sure he did, because he used the phrase, "not to list anything in the infobox." ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 13:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TreasuryTag, PLEASE stop being so aggressive and melodramatic. I am being civil. Please be civil too. It's an INFOBOX. They are intended to list short, factual, uncontentious information that doesn't require clunky phrasing or exposition. It is not "censorship", nor "omit[ting] information for the sake of a quiet life". The prose of the article makes it clear. It's an infobox, about a fictional character, not the lead section paragraph about a war real-life criminal.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aggressive? Incivil? I think not. But feel free to back up those claims with diffs. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 19:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, striking the above. She was born human, of two human parents. There's no reason to engage in original research as to her race after the metacrisis.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the Doctor saying, "You're part human, part Time Lord," is original research? Bollocks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 19:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. But stating that she's part human, part Time Lord after he wipes her mind is iffy. Obviously, something's up since she wasn't affected by the Master's takeover, but what that is, we don't know exactly, unless RTD has made it clear. Russell, don't suppose you're actually reading this, are you? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So he wipes her mind. Henry vanStatten had his mind wiped, it didn't change his species – it's original research to assume that a mind-wipe entails some change in species. As you say, Donna was still exhibiting non-human traits by "The End of Time" and I genuinely cannot imagine why it is supposedly sensible to list her as human. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 20:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's original research to assume that whatever the doctor did just erased her memory. Besides, the Donna Noble in "The Runaway Bride" was human. The Donna Noble in "Partners in Crime" was human. Heck, the Donna Noble in "The Stolen Earth" was human.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's original research to assume that whatever the doctor did just erased her memory. But just as much original research, if not more, to assume that whatever the Doctor did and called a "mind wipe" did more than just erase her memory... ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 20:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiography[edit]

Somebody added this to the article:

Following her first appearance, Catherine recieved a mixed response from viewers. When it was announced that she would be returning full time, again the reaction based on her first appearance was mixed, but following a full season, Catherine managed to convert even the most hardened of critics and she quickly won round a majority of the audience and Donna became one of the most beloved companions in the show's history.

I think this is true, but I had to remove it because it's unsourced. A good source for the improvement in Tate's reputation in the role would be a change in tone of the media reviews of the episodes in which she starred, from the first Christmas Special (The Runaway Bride) to the season four finale (Journey's End). In my opinion Tate's performance was unique. Week after week she provided a necessary grounding to the series, enabling Tennant to show his full range as an actor. In Turn Left, she showed that she could support a prime time BBC drama on her own. A tour de force that has enhanced her reputation.

But we can't put that into the article. We need something properly sourced. --Jenny 16:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about putting in a section along the lines of 'Critical Reception' to incorporate the text in italics. As for a reference the Digital Spy review of season 4 agrees with what is stated above - with more examples found in episode reviews - in particular Forrest of the Dead. The link is here: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/a109755/doctor-who-season-four-review.html Also it may be worth including Cathrine's own comment of thanks to Russel for casting her and going against public 'sterotyping', which can be found here:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/a110865/tate-thanks-doctor-who-boss-for-gamble.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.172.100 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personality[edit]

I think there should be a little paragraph about how Donna becomes less abrasive as series 4 progresses and how she challenges the Doctor's beliefs (e.g. in the "The Fires of Pompeii" and "The Doctor's Daughter"). What does everyone else think? yettie0711 (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source it from reviews. --Jenny 10:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the only proof I got is from Doctor Who Confidentials and commentaries off of BBC 7 which I know is not good enough. There is probably a review off the TV Guide website or something like that but I can't really be bothered to find sources. I find source searching tedious – sorry :( yettie0711 (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doctor Who Confidential is a reliable source for production-level information. --Jenny 16:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of universe[edit]

Somebody just removed the only out-of-universe information from this article[1]. I've restored it and encourage all editors to improve it. In-universe stuff belongs on a fan forum, basically. --Jenny 16:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved it somewhat (a good 2 years on, I'm afraid).~ZytheTalk to me! 19:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donna's return[edit]

As has been quoted many times by various different editors, Digital Spy got their source from the Sun regarding Donna's speculated return in series 5. However, the Sun is not a reliable source. Until this is confirmed by the BBC (either through their Press Office or the official Doctor Who website), any further additions will be removed. ~~ [Jam][talk] 22:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donna's pilotting the TARDIS[edit]

Ok, since my post on how Donna pilots the TARDIS in the Sontaran Stratagem by herself (with SOME interfierance by the Doctor to keep on course) keeps getting deleted, and since others will become annoyed if I put it back up, I'd like to note something; how many other companions, who weren't time lords or robots, have pilotted the TARDIS themselves? How many have shown an ability to pilot the TARDIS without second guessing themselves or an instruction booklet? None so far, in my memory, other than Donna. So why is it being deleted? Other companions have their talents put up in some form or another, and the post itself isn't that big. It may be in the wrong spot, but it does have revelance.--Nemen32 (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, only citable information has relevance. That said, the information is best integrated in TARDIS, which has a section on piloting the TARDIS. — Edokter • Talk • 00:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Noble[edit]

her name is Donna Temple Noble now she got marryed on the end of time part 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternal Pink (talk • contribs) 4 January 2010, 03:06 (UTC)

We always refer to characters to their commonly known name, in this case Donna Noble. She was married for less then 5 minutes on-screen. — Edokter • Talk • 14:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not planned for The Stolen Earth?[edit]

I'll have to dig my copy of The Writers Tale out, but I'm pretty certain someone misunderstood the book. How could Donna Noble not have been intended to appear in The Stolen Earth when she was the main companion in an episode that was the penultimate episode of her season and ended with the mindwipe? Who, then, was the Doctor going to mindwipe? I think there's an error in there somewhere. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read in the article, it appears to being saying that Donna's non-return was based on her status at that point as a one-off guest in the Christmas special. The original vision for series four would not have had her as a companion at all, and thus there would be no need for a Donna "mind-wipe". --Ckatzchatspy 04:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donna_Noble&oldid=1209398012"