# Talk:Jenny (Doctor Who)

<!-- NO MORE EDITING TO "TIME LORD". Should remain "Unknown" until the character is actually IN AN EPISODE THAT HAS AIRED. Stop the edit wars. -->
I added the above hidden note in the hopes that it will keep people from repeatedly editing in the Race of the Day.  The character has not even aired yet, so unless you have some reference by a writer stating as a fact what her race is, it is unknown.  Patience, people; the episode will air shortly. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think that the message will make a difference, then you have more faith than me. Regardless, I commend your effort. TalkIslander 16:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't really, to be perfectly honest.  It's just now I'll feel perfectly fine with leaving {{Vandalism1}} tags on the pages of people change the race and remove the message.
And trust me, there are probably few people less excited to see what the whole deal behind "Jenny" is.  Waiting?  Not really my favorite thing. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
David Tennant says "the same race as him, or something akin to it."~ZytheTalk to me! 19:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Plus she gives off the same regeneration energy Tennant did in The Christmas Invasion - Tphi (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Calling Jenny a Gallifreyan is as wrong as calling Cline or General Cobb an Earthling. They aren't from Earth. All three of these characters would be dubbed Messalinean, because they were born on that planet, but that doesn't properly differentiate Jenny (who's genetically descended from Time Lords) from the other two (who are cloned from human stock). The Doctor is from Gallifrey, which is the only thing that makes him Gallifreyan, just as Donna is from Earth which makes her an Earthling, or Terran if you prefer. Both Donna and The Doctor could perhaps be described as humanoid. However, The Doctor is not a human, like Donna. He's a Time Lord. This is why you can't call Jenny a Gallifreyan. She's not Gallifreyan. She's not from Gallifrey. She's never stepped foot on that planet. You can only refer to her as a Messalinean, a humanoid, or a Time Lady. In short, although at the moment I'm not contributing, I for one applaud these 'edit wars,' and hope they continue, until you all get it right. - ZachsMind (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My, you do sit on a high and mighty throne don't you? Her ethnicity/race is Gallifreyan. David (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
My, you can't read can you Dave? Her ancestry may be from Gallifrey, but that doesn't make her Gallifreyan, any more than it makes me Scottish. - ZachsMind (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Mr Jones. Mr Garland, you have unfortunately fallen into a trap of extrapolating an incorrect equivocal meaning by analogy from an existing example. Now, the way it works is this: you may use "Gallifreyan" to mean whatsoever you wish it to mean. However, its general-accepted meaning is just than: the generally-accepted one, i.e. what it is usually used to mean, which, in this case, refers to an (admittedly ill-defined) invented species, who originated on Gallifrey. The word "Gallifreyan" works like "human", in that a Gallifreyan is a member of said species and could have been born wherever, it is just a perhaps inconvenient and confusing coincidence that the species is named for its originating planet. The term is a fanon invention (although, notably, it is extremely widely accepted) to describe the overall species of which Time Lords form a part. The same theory (c.f. the Outsiders) holds that the Time Lords are merely a subculture of the Gallifreyan species (although they may be differentiated biologically in some way(s) due to their advanced technology). As such, there may be several criteria which a Gallifreyan must fulfil in order to be termed a "Time Lord(/Lady)". The problem, of course, lies in that official canon has not given us any such criteria. I do hope I have elucidated the point sufficiently. Yours, DBD 19:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
And, by the way, you are a poor wikipedian indeed if you "applaud these edit wars". Edit wars are completely counter-purposive, and are to be avoided at all costs. DBD 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You said it yourself, DBD. It's a fanon creation. "Generally accepted" presumptions are not necessarily correct. I don't care about being popular. I'm just explaining what's correct. If it takes an edit war to get it right, wanting something to be right does not make one poor. - ZachsMind (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I will admit to generally accepted presumptions not being necessarily correct, but the term Gallifreyan exists solely as a fanon creation. Therefore, if it is to be used at all, it is to be used in that sense and that sense only. DBD 19:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
She is not from Gallifrey. She is not Gallifreyan. Usage of this 'fanon creation' may be popular but it is still misleading and therefore wrong. Perhaps the only acceptable term would be 'unknown,' until the canon provides a clearer picture. We simply don't know enough about her to use a definitive and conclusive term. Anything other than 'unknown' is simply too disputable, but please continue the petty bickering. I find it most entertaining. - ZachsMind (talk)
No, no, no no no. She *is* Gallifreyan, because she fits that term's definition. However, I concur in that we shouldn't present fanon as canon, so "Unknown" would likely be best. DBD 20:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake - isn't it simple? Her RACE is Gallifreyan. Just like someone can be of Indian ethnicity but never actually have been to India. In the template it says "Race: ". What else can you put? ("Time Lord" perhaps - but it is not clear whether you need to have graduated from the Time Lords' Academy or not to attain this title.) David (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Further, ZachsMind, you seem to be mixing up race/ethnicity with nationality. I can be of Japanese ethnic background, but born and raised in Spain. What does that make me? Well, my ethnicity would be Japanese and my nationality Spanish (and possibly Japanese in addition). Going back to this case with Jenny, she is ethnically Gallifreyan/Time Lord. And frankly she doesn't have a nationality! David (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
For pete's sake... People, this is exactly why there are entries for both "Race" and "Home Planet".  Why?  Because there are individuals that are of a race born on another planet, or planets with more than one race, etc etc.  To put this in a different light; is a Vulcan still a Vulcan if not born on Vulcan?  Yes.  This isn't even an ethnicity, this is literally a racial difference.  Jenny's "race" as close as can be told is Gallifreyan/Time Lord. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. David (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


### Break
Cripes... OK, let's get the facts straight:

The Doctor = Time Lord
Father / daughter relationship
Same DNA (only resequensed)
Therefor same race/species as the Doctor
Equals to: Jenny = Time Lord
How much more simple could this be? Anything else is original research, or fan speculation at best. Let's stick to the provable and provided facts, people; this is not Wikia (no offence, but that is the place for these kind of discussions).  — Edokter • Talk •  22:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

But you're missing the point. Are all Gallifreyans Time Lords? As it states elsewhere in Wikipedia - "It is also implied heavily in the series that there are those from Gallifrey who are not Time Lords". Time Lords are more just a species from Gallifrey. Hence the Doctor going on about the Time Lords having a shared history, suffering, etc. David (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Where does Wiki say that? The Shebogans in Invasion of Time aren't an implication! MartinSFSA (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, got it, added a note, ta! MartinSFSA (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Jenny is not from Gallifrey her 'dad' is so therefore she cant really be Gallifreyan unless she states that she 'is' which in this case nope not yet. i agree with edokter completly just that the fact of the matter she does not know much about her time lord heritage. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. We know from past episodes that not all Gallifreyans are Time Lords, thus she is not necessarily a Time Lord. We also know that she was not 'born' on Gallifrey (if, indeed, she was 'born' at all), hence it could be said that she's not Gallifreyan. Hence the only thing we can say about her race is that we don't know it! Anything else is OR. TalkIslander 22:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
What? Her race is clear - the same as the Doctor's. Which is either Time Lord and/or Gallifreyan, depending on what you believe. Where you were born does not give you your race. David (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It is speculated, but has no deciding information one way or the other, and therefor it is easier to blanket Gallifreyans as Time Lords barring any information otherwise.  The Doctor's reference to shared suffering and the like can be considered akin to many real-world cases of statements to the effect of "you're not really Irish because this-and-that" and the like.
It's slightly odd that you blank it to "Unknown" yet right here you put "Equals to: Jenny = Time Lord".  It's also arguably just as much original research to assume that her race would be anything other than the logical race for a reproduction-level alteration of the Doctor's DNA.
At any rate it seems you're still confusing "Gallifreyan" as a culture with "Gallifreyan" as a genetic structure.  Genetically, there is no reason to think that she is not the standard for a Gallifreyan, and there is even less to assume that a Time Lord has a different genetic structure from that; does a Freemason have different DNA from me? --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
"Implied" is more speculative then sticking to the given facts. As far as the Whoniverse is concerned, yes, all people from Gallifrey are Time Lords. Those "implied" not to be could have come from anywhere. Plus, the term "Gallifreyan" was never actually used by the production staff as far as I know (please prove me wrong), making the term only a fan invention.  — Edokter • Talk •  22:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point.  For starters, "Gallifreyan" is not the racial stat being argued (or if someone is argueing it, then they're just plain wrong).   Next, I'm using "Gallifreyan" as a way to distinguish a possible variation between the populace of Gallifrey between the normal folk and the Time Lords.  Since there is no evidence otherwise, anyone of the Time Lord race (not birhplace.  the actual race itself, which presumably evolved there just as Humans evolved here) is a Time Lord until something states otherwise.  And since we are talking about a species, it does not matter where or how an individual was birthed, it is simple genetics.  Jenny might not have all the same capabilities of the Doctor, but there is nothing to say that this isn't normal for an untrained Gallifreyan/Time Lord child.
Jenny has (barring any future information) pure Time Lord genetics that is simply slightly randomized (in the same way of normal reproduction, as mentioned in the episode itself.  Therefor any race/status other than Time Lord is the unsourced speculation, seeing as how there isn't currently any un-speculated and clearly stated difference between the group we know as "Time Lords" and the rest of the population.  --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
OK hold on, from what I can understand, you are in favor of "Time Lord"? Then what are we bickering about? (Or were you replying to David?) I listed all the verifiable information above, concluding that Time Lord is the only possible race for Jenny.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I may have confused things somewhat with this slightly misleading edit summary - sorry 'bout that. I still maintain that we just don't know enough about Jenny to give her a 'race', but it seems consensus is against me. Hmm. TalkIslander 23:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This whole "break" was caused by you (1) reveryting "Time Lord" to "Unknown" on the page (2) creating this "Break" section directly after "Time Lord" had been agreed upon by more than one (3) creating this "break" section with an elaborate argument that I assumed was for something other than "I know you decided on Blah, but this is my argument as to why you really need to decide on Blah."
Also, I am not "bickering".  For starters, I am not my grandmother and therefor have never and will never "bicker". :P  In fact, twice now I've had to resort to leaving editor's notes directing people making changes to-and-fro over here in the express hope of having to think about this whole issue as little as possible tonight.
Now, I'm going to leave "Unknown" and the editor's note there for the moment.  That will give people time to come on with thier own version of the Race entry, and hopefully direct them over here.  If they have anything other than "Time Lord" they can bring it up here.  I can't personally see a valid reason, but it's good to give the chance.
Then I'll change it to "Time Lord" with a new note directing people here if they want to change it.
Then, I shall go pour myself a pint or three.  --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Minor note for your future reference.  David had also been one agreeing with "Time Lord" directly before and above your creation of the "break" section. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, Gallifreyan/Time Lord. I believe there is a difference (ie Time Lords are Gallifreyans with a qualification to be Time Lords from the Academy). But her race is definitely one of those two things. David (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I still don't think "Gallifeyan" is a word ever used within the series, or by the producers, by which virtue it cannot be used on Wikipedia.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I actually reverted "Gallifreyan" back to "Time Lord", not "Unknown", you changed it to "Unknown". Check the History, I think you misunderstood me. If the consensus is indeed for Time Lord, then by all means let's put that back.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I also agree that there is an almost clearly stated difference between Time Lords and Gallifreyans, but this is a topic that has only been barely alluded to.  This issue is mentioned on several of the relevant pages, but/and until new material comes out Time Lord should remain the referened race for all the various characters. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering but wouldnt Jenny be classed as a 'Cloned Time Lord' or 'Time Lord Clone. Both could point towards the normal Time Lord page. This being that she is indeed a clone and misses one of the usual time-lord traits at least (Changing look when regenerating) Jamesbuc  —Preceding comment was added at 06:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You're making the assumption that she regenerated - didn't look at all like a regeneration to me, more like the residual energy that the Doctor had in The Christmas Invasion. TalkIslander 11:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sourcable enough to be taken as fact, but there are multiple references to the Time Lord hierarchy having some control over regenerations, which hints that regenerations might be the Time Lord equivalent of a "diploma" or the like.  Or a driver's license.  Or something.  I dunno, but it is certainly hinted to not be an entirely innate feature of Time Lord biology.
Besides that, there's the fact that she is not a clone.  If you wanted to get technical, she likely falls into the catagory of a hermaphroditicly reproduced organism.  Her DNA is not identical to the Doctor's any more than you are identical to your own father's DNA.  Without going too far into the science behind the episode's technology, the machines are not "cloneing" so much as using samples of base DNA and putting it through the same randomiations of normal reproduction and then spitting out quick-grown bodies. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, let's just sum it up. If you "cloned" (or whatever Jenny was) a human on another planet, they'd be human. Same works for Time Lords. I don't see what the bickering is about LuGiADude (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
And to make it less disputable, take a dog, if you "cloned" a dog on a different planet would it be a dog? YES.LuGiADude (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Since when is 'dog' a race?? TalkIslander 15:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's own definition of Time Lord:
"It is implied (in The Invasion of Time and The Deadly Assassin) that the terms Gallifreyan and Time Lord may not be synonymous, and that Time Lords are simply that subset of Gallifreyans who have achieved the status of Time Lord via achievement in the Gallifreyan collegiate system; in the episode The Sound of Drums The Doctor talks of children of Gallifrey which implies that children are Gallifreyan before they are Time Lords. Romana and the Doctor have also referred to Time Tots, or infant Time Lords, and (in Smith and Jones) the Doctor refers his compatriots and he playing with Röntgen bricks in the nursery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Lord
The generally accepted premise is that "Time Lord" is a title that is earned/bestowed upon a Galifreyan, therefore Jenny cannot be one.  The Doctor specifically stated that she was NOT a Time Lord because she lacked the shared history and suffering of his people.  Therefore, the only choices remaining are Galifreyan and Unknown.  Unknown is the more responsible choice because calling her a "Time Lord" is inconsistent with our current understanding of Time Lords vs Gallifreyans and The Doctor's own statements on the subject. WaveRunningNaked (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We cannot cite ourself, can we? The above paragraph is dangerously leaning toward original research anyway. Also, the Doctor did not explicitly say that Jenny was not a Time Lord; only what being a Time Lord curtails. The "generally accepted premise" does not help us much if it cannot be sourced. Until it can, we have to make due with the information given to us, namely that Time Lords come from Gallifrey, that the Doctor is a Time Lord, and Jenny is his daughter.  — Edokter • Talk •  16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Summary of my notes in WaveRunningNaked's talk page...
The key word in that quote is "implied".
For the purpose of Wiki (and for that matter the in-character universe) "Time Lord" refers to the species as a whole, even if future material will show that the in-planet society itself only used it in the way we might use "Senator" or "Professor".
Jenny is genetically the same as any pure-blooded Time Lord offspring that the Doctor would have.  It is possible that any differences (which have not yet actually been made apparent, for that matter.  if Jenny's lack of full regeneration can be explained by her still being in the "grace period" similar to when the Doctor regenerated his hand, there is zero reason to assume she is any different than a similarly unskilled and uneducated Time Lord child)
"Time Lord", for lack of a better explanation, is being used in the same way "African American" might be used in the United States.  It is referring to the genetic ancestory.  The Doctor's statemens of her not sharing the same tragedy and the like is akin to an individual being of African descent, yet not actually be from Afica.  Cultural upbringing and knowledge is not relevant to this designation of "Time Lord". --Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's just a metaphor. Fairly nice metaphor but whatever. Since when did the Doctor actually ever know what he's talking about? Hehe
Quote: 

Since when is 'dog' a race?? TalkIslander 15:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, dog isn't a race but that's not the point, if something is cloned somewhere else it's the same, or more or less the same as the original. So Jenny is a Time Lord. Hence, the Doctor is no longer Last of The Time Lords (even though he doesn't know Jenny's alive)
Quote:"Father / daughter relationship" Again, please explain how Jenny would be classified as his daughter given that her genetic information derives entirely from The Doctor's gene pool, and from half of his, and half from a female partner? She would be the genetic equivilant of a sister when you factor in half of her gene pool stems from the Doctor's father, and half from the Doctor's mother which would make them genetic siblings, not father and daughter. (24.62.126.170 (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC))


### Resolution
Ok. If Jenny was cloned using the Doctor's DNA, that means she is the same species/race. We can all agree on that much, regardless of whether we can label said species. Am I right? One's species and biological race is decided by their genetic heritage, yes?
Her father, the Doctor, is a Time Lord. But, are all people of Gallifrey Time Lords? We don't know. So what do we call them? Simple. As per the TV movie, the term Gallifreyan is canonical. Approximately 42 minutes into the Telemovie, the Doctor describes a memory of his father and himself lying on the grass on a warm Gallifreyan night.
Grace: "Maybe you're the result of some weird genetic experiment."
Doctor: "I don't think so."
Grace: "Well, you have no recollection of family."
Doctor: "No. No, no no no, wait, wait. I remember I... I'm with my father, we're lying back in the grass, it's a warm Gallifreyan night..."
Grace: "Gallifreyan?"
Therefore, the term Gallifreyan now has a bases in canonical fact, used to describe something or someone originating from Gallifrey; and Jenny's biological species originated on Gallifrey. If one were to clone a Terran on Mars, it would still be a Terran - whether it be a human, a dog, a cat, or a spotted toad. It's still Terran in origin. She is not necessarily a Time Lord, no. And her planet of origin is still Messaline.

Gallifrey = Planet. Jenny did not come from Gallifrey. She's not Gallifreyan :O I understand what you're saying but it makes more sense for her to be called a 'Time Lord' than a 'Gallifreyan'.LuGiADude (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, sorry, Gallifreyan would technically be correct. Time Lords are not a race, they are a group of Gallifreyans with no physical differences from other Gallifreyans. Like how you could say 'Politicians' lol isn't a race, they are a group of humans =\
I don't see 'Gordon Brown, Race: Politician', do you? This is why we should change 'The Doctor' to Gallifreyan. LuGiADude (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong: see "Smith and Jones" Martha: But what sort of species? It's not every day you can ask that! The Doctor: Time Lord. Therefore the Doctor describes his species as "Time Lord" not Gallifreyan. Ever. Gallifreyan being use as a species name is Fanon and Tie-In product only. I'm not going to enter into the argument beyond saying it's probably easier just to leave Jenny described as a Time Lord, which is the closest thing to a species category that she is given on screen. --GracieLizzie (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No.  No no no no no no NO.  Quite frankly, I'm getting sick of this whole argument (is it visibile? :P ).  Even in "End of the World" the Doctor is scanned and the result is "Time Lord", not "Gallifreyan".  Never, to my knowledge, has that word been used in reference to the residents of the planet.  And for that matter, the "rebels" that are mentioned (In what, 6 episodes at the absolute upper limit?) are far from the norm, and rebellion against a society does not change one's race.  Time Lord is what the members of this species are referred to, even by outcasts like the Doctor or the Master.  I personally welcome the day when all of this confusion will be cleared (Unlikely as it is to ever happen.), but until then (And perhaps even after.) the Doctor and therefor his pure-race "daughter" Jenny are "Time Lords".  It's just that neither one of them are fairly typical examples of the race as a whole.
I'm sorry if I come across as rude, it's just that there are pages of this here that you can read and bringing up the same talking points over and over again is getting frustrating. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Lol you geeks and your pedantisms. A normal viewer of the episode will be like "Whut? She Time Lord cause she daughter of Doctor". If you listened to your conversation, you would see how stupid and pedantic it is. All this ultraspecific Gallifreyan initiation to become a Time lord bollocks? Doesn't Donna say she's a time lord anyway? Seriphyn (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Even in "End of the World" the Doctor is scanned and the result is "Time Lord", not "Gallifreyan". Did you see the result on the scan thing? NO. And I forget if the tree woman said it, but even so there's no evidence that the scan actually said that, the tree woman could've been LYING! Er, anyway....LuGiADude (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
"Time Lord" is the exact phrasing that was used by her in the episode.  It is only slightly more likely that it read "Gallifreyan" than it read "Guy in the Big Blue Box".  It's possible, but there are times when you have to look at a scene and say "a cigar is just a cigar".  While it is possible to extrapolate different meanings and intentions, it becomes increasingly unlikely.
As for my "pedantisms", perhaps you're forgetting that this show existed for many years and many forms before 2005.  I'm no more so going to ignore that material in reference to a Wiki article than I would ignore any other knowledge simply because the other person might not be familiar with it. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, ill start by saying, what if there is more than one race of humanoids that come from Gallifrey? lets say there were 5 humanoid species on the planet Gallifrey, on a whole all the species could be referred to as 'Gallifreyan', for example every species on Earth (meaning all animals/insects) can be referred to as 'Earthlings' or another synonym of that, so going back to 'End of the World' bit, there is a high probability that the screen displayed 'Time Lord' even if we did not see it, because its a bit of an assumption for the 'tree woman' to just say 'Time Lord' if the screen displayed 'Gallifreyan'. Anyway back on the Jenny subject and linking in with my previous comments, wouldnt she be more of a 'Time Lord' than a 'Gallifreyan' as although she does not originate from the Time Lord's original home planet, shes still the same species as the Doctor and as many have said, the Doctor mentions his species as 'Time Lord' which would mean Jenny is equally a 'Time Lord', for another example in many other sci-fi's including Doctor Who, Humans have collonised other planets, (i.e. Messaline in Doctor Who) but always despite which planet they are born on there still called 'Humans' and are of the same 'race' and 'species' as the Humans from Earth, which would also imply that Jenny is a Time Lord not 'Gallifreyan'. Maxtitan (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
One thing: it's been scientifically proven that every human thinks everyone else is wrong, in one way or another. It is HUMAN NATURE to dissent to your neighbours, local police, feds etc. Why can't we just agree to disagree, and give it up as a bad job? Flash Man999 (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe not scientifically proven, but... Has anyone ever read the Red Dwarf novels? The makers of Red Dwarf make a prety convincing argument to the theory, if you ask me... Flash Man999 (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Taking to new section for new topic.

She possesses two hearts and her ability to regenerate is currently unknown.  During the episode, Jenny was shot and killed, then later resurrected by unknown means.  Since she did not change appearance, visual cues suggest that The Source repaired her compared to regeneration.
OK, what is your basis for this last bit?  I'll admit that I was expecting some kind of Spock-esque possibility from the start, but what visual cues?  The same visual effect (and sounds; both effects and music theme; if I'm not mistaken) were used as in the previous times in the new series that "Time Lord Energy" was expelled.  I think you might just be mistaken with that part.  I agree with the inclusion of the rest of it, in addition to the fact that the methods of her regeneration/ressurection are not clear at this time. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and an IP address comes in for the score, metaphorically speaking.  Referenced and covering most of the talk points.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any sources stating that female time lords are called Time Ladies? Bear in mind that women can be Lords too. Why should a race name imply gender? After all there is no such thing as a humaness! --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We need a source that female Time Lords are caled "Time Lady". As far as I can remember, the producers never used that term, making it a fan-coined word that should be avoided.  — Edokter • Talk •  12:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
City of Death, about three minutes into episode one--Doctor describes the sketch as that of a "Time Lady". MartinSFSA (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Why should/would a race imply gender?  Keep in mind that many, many existing languages do just this.  Mentioned in a joke in Y The Last Man, all it takes is the arrival of a single male to the previously all-female Canada to change the male/female variations of the language to refer to Canada as masculine instead of feminine.  And from what is seen of the Time Lords previously, this seems to be just the kind of thing that they would either put in from the beginning, or just plain old not care about. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Romana is referred to in the original series as a Time Lady. The BBC website has several references to her being such. [[1]] --Jeffro77 (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Also this episodes fact file.[[2]] "In case you're wondering, a female Time Lord is called a Time Lady." though personally I find the term clunky. Also the fact file forgot President Flavia and the Rani! --GracieLizzie (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If the BBC says a female Time Lord is called a Time Lady, then it's true, your memories and previous episodes don't count at all. BBC > All when it comes to Dr. Who LuGiADude (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say that the word Time Lord is used as both the name for their species and a title. By that, I mean that both male and female are of the species Time Lords, but males have the title Time Lord, and females have the title Time Lady. --Flib (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, the Romana article classes her as a Time Lady. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 19:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If she is considered to be a time lord( or lady which ever it may be), she certainly not natually one as she was
created in a cloning machine. Therefore, if she is included as a time lord, it should also note that she is technically
artificial. Jughead.z(1) (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is, in the main body of text. David (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
So by that logic, children created via artificial insemination and test tube babies should not be considered human, or are "techically artificial"? If all of her genetic makeup is that of a Time Lord, why would that circumstances of her conception even matter??? Jughead's comment seem to be totally devoid of logic. (24.62.126.170 (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC))

I've broken up the year/month/date with commas, since that info was given in the show.  What we don't know is what year that year matches up with to the current calendar, or even what the month/day system is.  However it is pointlessly confusing to leave it all as one number block, especially without a specific explanation in the wiki. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No such info was given. Donna went with an assumption and the Doctor recognized a specific calendar — he didn't confirm how that calendar worked, or that it worked at all like she had assumed. So it should be left exactly as given on screen, i.e. 60120724 in the New Byzantine calendar DBD 17:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The 24th was confirmed to be the day, which would match the month, I hardly see a reason of why the first four numbers 
arent the date in years, modern ships logs have four-digits in the year listing. Space travel would be that much different. The date in years would just be where ever the New Byzantine calendar started, or it could be another form of the calendar which uses B.C. and A.D., like the Gregorian calendar, yet starts on the same date as the julian. 60120724 is just too confusing to be put in an infobox, the calender can be listed, but I'm sure that it is around the 61st century, speficilly, July 24th 6012.
Jughead.z(1) (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you take the information for the Byzantine calendar, you'd also have to assume, that year 1 in this calender is not the same one as with the current one used by us. It could be 5509 BC and thus make the year something around 540 AD (which is entirely possibly as nothing states that those humans are from Earth). So we could speculate quite a bit but unless we can prove how the New Byzantine Calender works, we can only include what we know for sure. --SoWhy Talk 10:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Did you notice that the Doctor said calender, not the date in which it is set. Even if it is, it would be list of the page as the New Byzantine Calendar, but I think the date is quite obivous. It is aslo the NEW Byzantine calendar, not the past one. Jughead.z(1) (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
And thus we don't know how it works. My example was merely trying to point out that fact. And if we don't know that the first numbers imply the year (and nothing in the episode says so), we cannot write "61st century" or "year 6012". --SoWhy Talk 07:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jenny may be a time lord, but no one has confirmed this. There has been speculation and mentions in the show. There is a high chance she is, but this isn't confirmed. SimsFanTalk to Me • Commons 15:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take note of the +50% of the Discussion page specifically on this topic above.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just prior to the scene where she comes back alive, they have a shot of the Doctor's severed hand in the jar. i.e the one which grew back due to the Doctor having healing powers shortly after regenerating. Is it possibly this was suggesting she had similar healing powers almost shortly after being born?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.205.75 (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC) 

Yes, this is a possible speculation, but for the time being this is only speculation. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Also the Doctor knew how to control Regeneration which we cannot assume for Jenny. It could just have been the terraforming device that revived her. I reworded the part of the article that suggested Regeneration to be more neutral (as we do not know what caused it). Please improve further if necessary. --SoWhy Talk 10:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I am fed up with the reverting of my edits, please lets discuss it... I think the following paragraph from the article is not neutral and implies something that's OR:

When Jenny revives in the closing scenes, energy is released from her mouth in a similar fashion as the recently regenerated
Doctor during "The Christmas Invasion". Unlike The Doctor, Jenny does not change appearance before the energy was released.
The details of her revival not mentioned on screen or on commentary, thus her ability to regenerate is left unclear.

It positively implies that what happened to Jenny was similar to the regeneration of the Doctor itself in "The Christmas Invasion". That's quite OR imho. Also, all my attempts to add that the energy looks like the one from the terraforming device have been reverted with a OR claim. Either we remove both and reword the paragraph to imply nothing or allow other facts from the episode to be included into the article. --SoWhy Talk 19:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact of the matter is it was a similar thing. It is a fact it looks similar. LuGiADude (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It is original research to conclude so. Perhaps I think the special effects aren't THAT similar. We can only discuss if it was intended to be similar if a writer says it was.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It's fact that it looks similar to aforementioned part in The Christmas invasion but it's also fact that it looks like the terraforming gases. So why not include that fact in the article? Either we remove both ideas as OR or we include both... --SoWhy Talk 21:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Both need a source, yes.~ZytheTalk to me! 11:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I can understand wanting a source to compare the energy discharge that comes out of her mouth to the one that came from the Source, but striking down comparisons to The Christmas Invasion by calling it 'original research' is like requiring a source to declare that she has blond hair.--MythicFox (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, that is sometimes necessary.~ZytheTalk to me! 11:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it might have even reached Good Article status myself but one thing it isn't any more is a stub. --GracieLizzie (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly say it's no stub. --SoWhy Talk 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Did the source (or any source) mention which character Moffet auditioned for? I'd say it's safe to assume it was Miss Redmond (the Unicorn), but obviously that can't be mentioned unless it is confirmed. U-Mos (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any source at all that she did audition for a role in The Unicorn and the Wasp? --SoWhy Talk 11:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No, but the article does. That's the whole point. It's cited to DWM issue 390. My question is does it mention which character she auditioned for. U-Mos (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It was mentioned in Confidential. She also auditioned for Rose Tyler. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 17:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably worth pointing out in the article that the eighth Doctor had a daughter (Miranda) in the BBC novels, just another tv development uncredited to its source. MartinSFSA (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If those novels are to be considered canon is, as usual, subject to debate. If she was a biological daughter (which I don't know never having read those novels) the Doctor mentions several times that he lost his family in the Time War. Or was she cloned like Jenny? --SoWhy Talk 07:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The canonicity is irrelevant as we're not debating that he has two daughters or that she's the "real" daughter (or are we?). But giving the credit to Lance Parkin for the idea that the Doctor has a daughter is quite relevant. She was apparently adopted, even if she was biological (the Virgin novels have that the Time Lords are all genetic constructs from "looms") then it's still original to Lance as the Doctor's offspring could have been male. Or Other. As you mention it, the single greatest uncredited concept out of the novels is the Time War itself. The 900 pound gorilla no one wants to mention is the Time War's originator, Laurence Miles, is persona non grata now the show's such a success. Once again, just to be absolutely clear, this is not an invitation to debate canon (although I can enjoy that), merely conceptual credit. MartinSFSA (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Canon is just one of those daft concepts used by fans who can't bear the untidiness of fiction.  --Jenny 12:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The revival scene seemed to resemble some form of regeneration to me, so I changed the wording to say so.  "Appears to undergo a form of regeneration" or something. --Jenny 12:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We had that discussion on Talk:The Doctor's Daughter already with no apparent outcome :-/ --SoWhy Talk 13:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jenny (Doctor Who)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


### Greetings
Hello, my name is weebiloobil, I will be your reviewer for the forseeable future. If you have any comments during this process, feel free to leave them at User talk:Weebiloobil. As a member of the Doctor Who Wikiproject Assessment Committee, I will be ensuring that this article fully meets the good article criteria. If you have any problems, feel free to ask, and good luck! - Weebiloobil (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


### Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Good prose for a difficult subject
B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
The first 2 sections lack references - just simple ones to the episode itself will do for part of it, and DWM or Radio Times would be alright for her being the daughter of Peter Davison, and the last sentence needs a DWM or BBC reference. The rest of the article is fine
The lead summarises the whole article, so it doesn't require cites for an uncontroversial article like this. See WP:LEAD. Alientraveller (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I was not referring to the lead, but the two first paragraphs of the main body of the article. Forgive me - I should have been clearer. The nominator has since added these references - Weebiloobil (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
There appears to have been a recent edit war. Although the article has been fine for about the past month, the issue still feels slightly unresolved. If, by the time this is re-reviewed, no edit wars have taken place, then it satisfies this criterion
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
I am placing this article on hold. I will be back in 48 hrs to read through it again, but sooner if you contact me. If it has not improved in 7 days, it will be failed. Good luck with the improvements - Weebiloobil (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Having reviewed it for a second time, I have to conclude that this does meet the criteria. Of course, there are changes that could be made - for examples, see Rose Tyler - but, at this stage, it fulfills the criteria. Well done, a very good job! However, I am withholding GA-status until after Journey's End (Doctor Who) on Saturday, just in case she makes an appearance ;) The article will remain 'on hold' until about 7pm (UTC) tommorow, and will be granted the status if it remains like this, or improves. Just one more day! - Weebiloobil (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
So it's GA. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep - Weebiloobil (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Should I  add   the    possibility   of  Jenny   being   her  mother.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.42.137 (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC) 

No, that is pure speculation.  — Edokter • Talk •  13:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is random speculation masquerading as supportable fact:

Following the broadcast of "The Doctor's Daughter", the character was generally well-received by reviewers, with many[3][4][5][6] speculating that Jenny will either return to Doctor Who, or be granted her own spin-off show in the future - something which Moffett has also expressed an interest in.[7]
What people wish were true is not fact.  Why is this passage allowed to exist?  If/when an authority with the show announces that the character and/or actress will return and/or is/is not spunoff into a new programme, it can be added to the article.  Until such a time, this is speculation and original research, no matter how many sources you can pile up to prove that people are speculating. 71.200.138.188 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, the statement is a fact as it says that the people who reviewed the character were speculating about the return of the character , the article doesnt speculate she may return therefore there is no orginal research in the article. The purpose af that passage is that it informs the readers that the people who reviewd the character (not wikipedia) were speculating (which was true and a fact) about the character so the article is and was not in violation of original research and speculation it was simply pointing out what the reviewers were thinking which is just fine on wikipedia. Pro66 (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph itself is not speculating, it is stating that many reviewers and the like have speculated, and then goes on to comment that Moffett has also commented on the subject.  You seem to be misinterpreting the meaning as "wish were true" when instead it is simply covering the reaction of reviewers of the time. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This is speculation on the part of the reviewers, not on the part of Wikipedia or its editors. Remember we deal in verifiability, not truth. We can not verify that she willl be returning, but we can verify that the reviewers are speculating about it.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this character from the Category, Doctor Who characters. There were only three arbitrary pages in this category. The rest are in subcategories.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Pure Time Lord? I am sure I remember the Doctor saying she wasn't enough of a Time Lord, that she was only part Time Lord, so why does this state that she is pure Time Lord? I am changing it... felinoel (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the note in the edit page, I overlooked where it was dicussed because I was looking for species not race. felinoel (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that Jenny was comprised entirely from the Doctors DNA, and not from the combined gene pool of The Doctor and a female mate, why is she considered his "daughter"? Would her having been created form his gene pool alone make her his sister, and not his daughter? A child would receive roughly half of a father's genetic information, not 100% of it! They are more akin to brother and sister, not father and daughter.The only reason she is being called his daughter is because that is what the writers entitled the episode and how the characters described the relationship. (24.62.126.170 (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC))

Yep, and that's the criteria we use here at Wikipedia. What you're saying makes perfect sense but it's original research and therefore we don't include it. 131.96.13.213 (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Where is the OR in that? The word "daughter" means certain things, and a whole lot of those things do not apply to Jenny. The article should be in the English language, and in that language, she is not his daughter.  --91.10.40.157 (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, this is explained by the doctor himself in the episode when describing that particular DNA extrapolator.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.200.27.20 (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The Doctor explains how the Wikipedia article should be written?  --91.10.40.157 (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Short answer, yes. The program itself identifies the character as his daughter. As the article is about the character and not about someones personal opinion or analysis of genetics, the description of daughter is what applies. Articles reflect what the sources on the article subject states. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not at all about "someones personal opinion", it is about writing articles for the English Wikipedia. Your allegation seems to be that we should write articles in the language that is used by characters in fiction. This is, I'm sorry to say, so laughable that I don't even bother to find some examples that would point out how quick this breaks.
I probably do misunderstand you. Please elaborate. -91.10.60.252 (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable third-party published source that identifies Jenny as anything other than his daughter?  That's what would be needed (see WP:RS).  Attempting to use genetics to draw a conclusion that states she is not his daughter would be original research (see WP:NOR). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, this is just about the application of language. There is a name for "Person, who is created by removing body cells, nurturing them and bring them to growth." There is also a definition of "daughter". -91.10.60.252 (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
All available reliable sources identify the character as his daughter.  The sentence in the lead of the article which introduces her as such already qualifies it with the condition of how she was created.  That pretty much covers it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
All available sources use in-story, ie. fictional language. The Wikipedia should use English. Using the English language, Jenny is not the Doctor's daughter. -91.10.60.252 (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
That's because Jenny is a character, not a real person. Arguing semantics about a fictional character is utter and complete nonsense, because her very existence is completely reliant upon those who create and develop the character. All we know about her or will ever know about her is how she is defined in-universe. Attempting to apply real-world interpretation on fictional characters without a reliable source that directly states that interpretation is original research, and not permitted per site policies. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
That would all be true if Jenny would have just jumped one the stage. However, there is a somewhat detailed explanation of her creation process; there is also a term in the English language that matches that process to a high degree (and it's not "daughter"). -91.10.60.252 (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
It's irrelevant what you feel should be applied as the relationship.  You've had site policy and guideline explained to you.  For whatever reason, you are either unable or unwilling to accept those.  That happens, not everyone agrees with site policies and guidelines; but it's not going to change the fact that they apply despite your personal opinion that site policy should be ignored because you find them inconvenient.  If you want this changed, you'll need to discuss it at WT:RS or WT:NOR, as nothing you say on this page is going to over-ride those. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
You have not explained or even pointed out the relevant site policy or any guideline. Please don't claim that you did, that is dishonest. (Yes, you named some policies, but you failed to show how they are relevant.)
Don't make assumption about what I am unable or unwilling to accept. That leads to nothing at best, and could provoke some angry response. (Not with me right now)
Do not claim to know that I want to ignore policy because I find them "inconvenient". If your patience is exhausted, just walk away, but don't claim insight into my motives. -91.10.60.252 (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I have repeatedly pointed out WP:RS (reliable source guideline) and WP:NOR (no original research policy), and have repeatedly attempted to explain them - the fact that you do not accept that explanation is what I was attempting to convey in my prior post.  Those are what apply, and which you have not accepted. I notice that in your post to me about not assigning motivations, you then turn around and do the same, claiming my patience to be exhausted.  Pot, meet kettle. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
You did seem to be a bit exhausted. Am I wrong?
Yes, you pointed things out. As already stated, you failed to demonstrate relevance. -91.10.60.252 (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
They are site policies and guidelines - that is the relevance.  Site policies apply to all article content.  See also wp:Core content policies - which includes WP:NOR, as well as WP:V, which is directly supported by WP:RS. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
You never applied what I tried to explain about language. Do I need to state sources to apply the term "clone" to the concept "Person, who is created by removing body cells, nurturing them and bring them to growth."?
You did seem to be a bit exhausted. Am I wrong? -91.10.60.252 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and yes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Take a break then. See below, you win, no need to keep on going. -91.10.60.252 (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To clarify: Yes, site core policies apply to all.  On the second, yes, you are wrong, and considering your statement against applying motives to others (which was correct, I should not, and neither should you), do you really feel it appropriate to keep re-asking the question? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
What a waste of time. Be happy that you won and that your article is untouched by the unwashed. Bye. -91.10.60.252 (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand now that the owner of this article wants to keep it in fictional language ("Person, who is created by removing body cells, nurturing them and bring them to growth." = daughter) and I will stop discussing the issue. The term looks absurd and that is evident right after you get some distance between you and the topic, but I see that my time would be wasted. -91.10.60.252 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no page owner. You have had responses from myself and two different IP addresses (who may or may not have been the same person, I have no idea, given the potential of dynamic IPs) - so two or three different people responding. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
If you are not the page owner you should apply for the job. -91.10.60.252 (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not about elitism, it's about policy and correctness. Policy aside, it's also such a bizarre situation that their relationship, in any case, is whatever type they choose to assume - in the episode they go for father/daughter. Anyway, stop throwing all your toys out of the pram.Zythe (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The point still stands that the character Jenny does not meet any known definition of the term 'daughter.' Jenny is a being created wholly from The Doctor's DNA and would be the genetic equivalent of a sibling, not an offspring. (Sellpink (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC))

Take this to a forum.Zythe (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I know there are a lot of Doctor Who fans on Wikipedia; I'm one myself. But having a separate article for Jenny is just absurd. This is a character who has appeared in a single episode of the programme, and there is no evidence that she is going to reappear any time soon. I challenge everyone to find me another article on any fictional character, from any TV show, who only appeared in one episode. I bet (and hope) there aren't any, because one-episode characters just aren't notable. This article is fairly lengthy, but all the information in it could be contained perfectly well in The Doctor's Daughter; indeed, much of it is duplicated there. Simply put, there is no need for a separate article here. Robofish (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken about what determines notability; It is not the number of appearences, but coverage in the media. And judging form the references, there was quite a bit of coverage that easily establishes enough notability to warrant her own page. So oppose.  — Edokter (talk) —  14:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Edokter, I oppose merge proposal. Pro66 (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Robofish; it does seem to be a bit silly to give her her own article.  I would merge the articles for now and then re-separate them if she is ever mentioned again.  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
She has been mentioned plenty of times. The sources establish notability regardless of the timeframe of those sources.  — Edokter (talk) —  03:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with merge. Her notability is a constituent part of The Doctor's Daughter's notability, and doesn't exist independently of it. It should be merged in but retain a significant section. Compare my merging Christina de Souza with Planet of the Dead, which improved the latter article and clearly didn't sacrifice anything for doing so. Most links to Jenny aren't going to possibly be out of the context of TDD anyway (not that that's always an argument in and of itself, but it suggests futility).~ZytheTalk to me! 22:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep in mind though that this is listed as a Good Article; merging will lose that status, and The Doctor's Daughter needs work. But you're welcome to try.  — Edokter (talk) —  23:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Edokter that such a merge would neither meet the letter nor the spirit of the rules. Unlike other one-time characters, Jenny has received a huge amount of coverage and easily passes WP:N on her own. If we are on the topic of "challenging", I challenge you to show me where exactly in WP:N it says that one-time characters cannot have their own article (for example, Grace Holloway has her own article despite only appearing in the 1996 film and in some comics). Regards SoWhy 08:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose merge, not only is the article listed as GA, but the article has enough suitable third party references relating to the character than the episode she appeared in, so there's notability. Also, to answer Robpfish's question; "I challenge everyone to find me another article on any fictional character, from any TV show, who only appeared in one episode." Astrid Peth. -- Matthew RD 18:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The Doctor Who project is terrible with this though. Of course there are sources for Kylie's character. However none of those sources justify her having an article beyond "Voyage of the Damned", even. Asrid's not, for example, been attributed particular significance in other areas of popular culture. Notability does not equal sources. And the notability which sources give us is often mis-attributed, especially in the cases of Jenny and Astrid. They severely lack a real reason to be; they should be merged (properly) into making those episodes' articles better. In particular, "The Doctor's Daughter" has a real world history which  mostly concerns either the character's conception, casting or reception. The two are not as divisible as editors would like; they do not have proper notability outside of one another, in the way that (for example) William's wedding or Michael Jackson's death have notabilities which extend outside of their biographies. We, honestly, could take any show that gets significant media coverage and which gets a guest star to comment on it, e.g. we could make a Bryan Ryan article for Neil Patrick Harris' guest spot in "Dream On (Glee)".~ZytheTalk to me! 22:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm removing the merge tag at the episode, as discussion has stalled and consensus still seems to be no merge.  (There is an older, more thorough discussion at the episode's talk page.)  --75.207.3.147 (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Doctor's companion in "the Doctor's daughter" is Martha Jones (Freema Agyeman), not Donna Noble (Catherine Tate). Sorry for my bad english.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.54.224.38 (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 

"The Doctor's Daughter" is a Series 4 episode, and as such, Donna Noble (Catherine Tate) is the companion. NW (Talk) 20:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
A series can only have one fixed companion? Please provide a source for this. -91.10.60.252 (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radiotimes.com/content/show-features/doctor-who/georgia-moffett-interview/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518161811/http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2008/05/doctor-who-46-the-doctors-daughter/ to http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2008/05/doctor-who-46-the-doctors-daughter/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)