This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Martha Jones article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Surely she'll be the third companion of the Tenth Doctor, not the second? Rose is the first, Mickey the second and Martha the third. - NickBarlow 16:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, still three! Morwen - Talk 16:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, though some argue that Mickey doesn't count (for whatever reasons), he is listed in [Category:Doctor Who Companions], so for reasons of Wikipedia's own internal consistency, Martha should be listed as the third. I edited the page to say as much, but didn't give a good reason, so it was changed back. Does someone with an account fancy giving it a go? - Ben Swithen.
I count her as the Tenth Doctor's fourth companion, if you define a companion as somebody who travels with the Doctor between stories: Rose, Mickey, Donna, and Martha. -- MisterHand 16:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It says she is human on the article. But we don't really know that do we? Yes, it's most likely, but I don't think it's been confirmed. Jamandell (d69) 17:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
See Talk:Doomsday_(Doctor_Who)#New_Companion The_B 18:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It probably doesn't matter that much, but is there any advantage in changing the "medical student" citation from the Doctor Who website to the BBC Press Office's press release? That might seem a bit more formal and less "fannish" — but do we need to? (I guess I'm wondering if it's worth the effort — the content of the two pages is practically identical, and they're both BBC websites...) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 05:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
She's the best looking Who companion since Romanadvoratrelundar #1. I'm tellin' ya, British blacks are VERY attractive!! Sophie Okonedo, Marsha Thomason... ;) Hopefully her character will have a personality as cool and as attractive as Romana's, BEFORE Romana's regeneration. :( Anyway... -- Promus Kaa 19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
My usual question...what's contemporary here? When is Martha Jones living? After December 2007 surely (as per The Runaway Bride) anywhere up to or beyond January 2009 (as per Invasion of the Bane). Anyone any info here? [User: - Stripey]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.249.187.178 ( talk • contribs) 20:32, March 25, 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, like Rose, it just didn't want to tell us. It said it was after Doomsday, but that was an absolute given. It's likely to be after The Runaway Bride, considering that The Doctor was still hung up on his memories of Rose in that episode, and has had "time" to adjust more when he speaks of her to Martha. Whether or not it's after Everything Changes, or Out of Time, remains the main query. [User: Stripey].
I believe the production team has stated that Smith and Jones took place contemporously(March 2007). I don't think Martha mentioned any events from the Runaway Bride. I don't have a link handy though. 75.162.9.53 20:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed a sentence about the kiss from Smith and Jones and its possible implications for a couple of reasons: first, if we're going to cite it, it would probably be better to cite the official website rather than YouTube (even if it is BBC-sponsored YouTube); second, press reports from the debut suggest that, like the kiss between the Doctor and "Rose" in New Earth, there's more (or less) to this kiss than may meet the eye; and third, given that, I think it's best to wait on mentioning it until the episode airs.
That said, we probably do want to have a section in the article about Martha's relationship with the Doctor. One recent interview had someone — possibly Agyeman, possibly RTD? — describing it as "unrequited love", suggesting that Martha was romantically interested in the Doctor but he doesn't reciprocate. If we can find that source, we could include it and other press snippets (such as the "sharing a bed" business from The Shakespeare Code) in an appropriate section. But we should keep in mind that based on past experience, these snippets are generally more ambiguous in the episodes as aired than the press makes them out to be beforehand. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Now that Daleks in Manhattan and Evolution of the Daleks have aired, perhaps something more could be added on the unrequited love theme since Martha has commented on this in-series. For example, Tullula says it's obvious that Martha has a thing for the Doctor, and Martha says the Doctor looks at her and doesn't see her. -- Nantonos 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Surely the picture should be showing just Martha, rather than her kissing the Doctor? You can't actually make out her face in the one that's currently there - not to mention that the image quality is incredibly bad.-- Rambutan ( talk) 07:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well done! Keen on the kiss picture... maybe Freema herself? :-) -- Rambutan ( talk) 09:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Unlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Talk:Martha_Jones What links hereike Rose's family, Martha's family do not seem to be as pivotal to the series - they only appear briefly at the beginning and the end of their first episode, Smith and Jones, and play no vital role in the main events.
POV, yeah? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.206.228.15 ( talk) 10:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
Looks like your wrong now 86.157.43.112 17:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I have some serious concerns over the history section for Martha as it makes a handful of statements that have thus far been proven false in the five episodes shown of Series 3 thus far, and also certain comments that have been made about the character Rose Tyler.
The first point of concern being this: Freema Agyeman told the school publication The Newspaper that Martha is older and more secure than Rose[8] (whose paternal issues made the bulk of the subtext of her relationship with the Doctor, particularly in his ninth incarnation). This statement is phrased in such a way that implies that Rose had paternal issues which she had displaced on the Doctor, which is flat out untrue. The only time her parents were ever an issue was during the episode Father's Day, and it certainly was never the "bulk of the subtext of her relationship with the Doctor." In the Confidentials, RTD and the actors themselves had on a constant bases clearly stated that Rose and the Doctor were in love, and paternal issues were never mentioned.
The second point of concern is as follows: Martha, by contrast, travels with the Doctor for the adventure rather than because of a need for guidance or education; Agyeman also told The Newspaper that Martha hopes to eventually go back to Earth and finish her medical education. In spite of what the interview article may has stated, this is not the facts as Rose had stated in the episode Army of Ghosts that for the first 19 years of her life, nothing ever happened to her. And then she met the Doctor, who presented her with an escape from the dullness of her life. Getting educated was never an issue - Rose did leave for the adventure, and eventually stayed on because of her affection for the Doctor, intending to stay with him forever.
The third point of concern is this: It is noticeable that Martha shows off a lot more cleavage that Rose did and that physical interaction, such as kissing, with the Doctor is also more common. This statement is just plain unfounded as, and I counted, three kisses and multiple hugs are shared between Rose and the Doctor in the first two seasons of the new series, which out numbers by far the single kiss shared between Martha and the Doctor in Smith and Jones. And also, is the cleavage statement really relevant? I took the initiative and deleted this statement as, if needed, I can fully prove the invalidity of it. -- Talisha 9:37 May 2
This page, and others like Leo Jones and Tish Jones, all state that the characters are from 2008, but has there been any proof of this? A date of 2007 would be perfectly consistent with the continuity, especially taking into account the Doctor's remark about the last Harry Potter book in The Shakespeare Code. Until it's confirmed, shouldn't it be left simply as "21st Century"? David 16:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added her home year to the article since, with the airing of ...Drums, it now seems definitive. -- 77.99.30.226 22:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Marthajones.jpg is old, and she doesn't dress like that any more. Image:Martha Jones LOTTL.jpg better represents her more recent appearances (and imho makes her look better :-p) and also makes her look more like a Torchwood character.-- Codenamecuckoo 07:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
A citation link to Martha's MySpace blog is currently catching the attention of the spam filter. I've put in a request to whitelist it [1], but we can't edit the article while it's still there. Assuming no one objects, I'm going to remove the URL for the time being until it gets sort, but leave the dated reference. Mark H Wilkinson 15:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Since it's been confirmed by a reliable source, and this is properly verifiable and cited, I can't quite see the problem with stating this on her page. It doesn't say that she works for Torchwood: that would be OR. It just says that she's affiliated with them, and she is if she appears in three episodes.-- Rambutan ( talk) 13:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I agree that we don't know she'll be working for them. But if she's in the episode, then she must have some connection with them, no matter how abstruse it is.-- Rambutan ( talk) 06:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
But we've got a BBC source that says she'll be in Torchwood. And since Torchwood is in Torchwood, she's got a connection with them. An affiliation doesn't require any more knowledge than that she's connected with them, and we know that.-- Rambutan ( talk) 07:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Do we have a source on the episode numbers listed for her Torchwood appearances (4,5,6)? If so, can that be cited properly, please? Radagast 03:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This section probably doesn't even need to be here, but since people will made race/ethnicity an issue even when it's not, then the following should be changed.
In the episode "The Shakespeare Code", Martha wonders if she is safe in an era before emancipation, but the Doctor is blasé – when she prompts: "[I'm] not exactly white, if you hadn't noticed", he is non-plussed, ethnicity being irrelevant to the open-minded.
"...ethnicity being irrelevent to the open-minded." The Doctor is a timelord, so being "open minded" has less to do with his views on ethnicity than the fact that he's not a human. It's not like he's a caucasian who grew up in the South (United States) and has been exposed to the whole idea of racism/biggotry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.167.254 ( talk) 07:47, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Since the question has been asked, here's the extent of the info from the BBC [2] about Rose and Martha in combination: "Rose's return will mean the Doctor has three assistants in next year's series - Donna, played by Catherine Tate, and Freema Agyeman as Martha."
Leaving aside the fact that somebody failed to count to three, it still doesn't say what people are assuming, that Martha and Rose will be in the same episodes. I'll be surprised if they don't at least overlap, but all the story says is that they're both in Series Four. (Also notice that Jack isn't listed as one of the "assistants", for whatever reason.) We therefore should avoid expressions such as "alongside" and "appears with", at least until something more concrete emerges, if at all. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 22:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm struggling to see what the objection to listing (and citing) the episodes of Torchwood that Martha will be appearing in over the next few weeks. It's not about WP:CRYSTAL, because it's been confirmed when she'll be on the air... what's the prob? Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed a line from the section regarding her appearances on Torchwood. The line stated that she has "settled down with a boyfriend" since becoming a doctor and joining U.N.I.T.
She only makes a passing reference to a boyfriend in the episode, as a means of deflecting the flirtations of Owen Harper. If we're going to assume anything from this reference, I'd say it's this:
I've reworded the line as I thought appropriate... Feel free to adjust it if you disagree, but I'd leave the "settled down" part out if it were me. - Juansmith ( talk) 19:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I can accept that, but the "settled down" portion of the line still strikes me as commentary. Even if we take everything on the show at face value, without any interpretation, she's a doctor that works in the paranormal and for a covert branch of the UN. She indicates that she travels a lot. Does any of this sound "settled" to you? Even if we're not permitted to read into (what I consider to be) the obvious subtext of the "boyfriend" line, then we must apply this rule uniformly and leave the rest of the commentary out. If you agree, please reword the line accordingly... I'm leaving it alone for now. - Juansmith ( talk) 19:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
But it should now be added because as we found out, in series four, she is engaged. Donna notes that she must have gotten over the doctor fast. Lovingnews1989 ( talk) 02:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This article's main image was recently changed from Image:Marthajones.jpg to Image:MJones.png with the edit summary "All things being equal, the cropped image does have a stronger fair use justification than the uncropped one. Certainly this is not a clear-cut NFCC issue that can be reverted without explanation." Could you clarify the actual reason for changing the image, as I don't quite understand. The fair use rationale of the current image says "To Provide a recent and up to date image for identification of a main character" which to me suggests recentism. The reason I initally uploaded Image:Marthajones.jpg in favour of the previous version was because I wanted to show her in her red jacket. The DVDs describe that jacket as her definitive look, and I think the image should reflect that, even if she hasn't worn it recently. This sounds petty I know, but recentism annoys me. Paul 730 22:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
She was supposed to appear, but Freema has been sacked for working for ITV! [3] Should this be noted? Jack apparently offered her a job at the end of Journey's End, but now she won't be taking it. Digifiend ( talk) 12:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is she the only major character not to have an "Other Appearances" section? Instead of a neat list of her stories, she has to make do with a few paragraphs about what else she's been in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Wake ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Martha appears in the radio play Lost Souls (Torchwood) where she has been working at CERN. There isn't currently a section this would fit into, but should a radio section be created for just this one appearance? Could the literature section be changed to other apperances to take in the radio play? Million_Moments ( talk) 18:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
In her info box it lists her race as human - surely this is her species? 135.196.2.145 ( talk) 17:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
If they're the same in sci-fi speak surely it'd be best to use species, as this is correct in scientific/real-world speak? Species refers to sets such as humans, cats, cows, birds, bacteria, lemons, grass etc. - race refers to subsets like Western honey bee, Mexican lime, red deer, etc. The pages on Species and Race in wikipedia are very clear on this - Human is a species, and dividing the human species into subspecies Race categories is an outdated social construct. It is indeed the 21st century, so the 'Race' label in the info box should be removed and replaced by Species. Marthiemoo ( talk) 19:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, so... as no one seems to care, I'll go for it: shouldn't the name of the page be Martha Smith-Jones (and redirect Martha Jones links to it)?! Napy1kenobi ( talk) 19:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I would argue that the scene included on the Series 5 DVD boxset in which Amy views images of previous companions should be mentioned in the relevant articles for several reasons:
1. It's consistent with how the articles are written. They mention other instances where this has happened (i.e. Logopolis, Resurrection of the Daleks) and this one is especially relevant as it's the first time many of these companions have been seen/referenced in the new series.
2. I don't think the argument that the scene is not notable because it was never transmitted holds water. By that same logic, any information contained in Shada is similarly irrelevant.
3. The scene uses the images of past companions to prove Amy's point as it were. Therefore, it sums up the whole history of the Doctor and his female companions in a nutshell. That, I think, is significant enough to warrant a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slughorn42 ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Slughorn42 ( talk) 01:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
She becomes a Doctor, assumedly of Medicine. Should this be mentioned in her infobox? Sam john 95 01:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
At the end of the Television section it states that "In The End of Time (2010), it is revealed that Martha has married Mickey Smith instead of her previous fiancé" but since there's no indication as to when the scene of Martha and Mickey it's possible that Martha still married her previous fiancé, divorced or lost him and then married Mickey afterwards.
I propose the line be adjusted to "In The End of Time (2010), it is revealed that at some point in the future Martha has married Mickey Smith" until it's definitively established just when she started having a relationship with Mickey, cheating hussy that she is. >D
-
Jezebel1669 (
talk) 17:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Martha Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Martha Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)