Talk:Susan Foreman

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

message: The article currently says "...Although it was never explicitly stated that she was the Doctor's biological granddaughter..."
I don't think this quite is true/and/or/makes sense - surely Susan & and the Doctor explicity refer to each other onscreen as "grandfather" and "granddaughter" in virtually every story.
And surely the word "granddaughter", spoken in English without further qualification, always means "biological granddaughter"? If you want to qualify it, you say "adopted grandfather" or "my stepfather's dad" etc etc.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to have a sentance in the article "Although Susan continually refers on screen to the Doctor as her 'grandfather', some fans have speculated that this should not be taken literally to imply a biological relation" or somesuch?--feline1 16:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Biological granddaughter" is certainly the default meaning of "granddaughter".  I also agree that the article should first reflect the clear intentions of the original production team, and deal with fans' later interpretations afterwards.  I'll see what I can do. —Josiah Rowe 18:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Granddaughter 

message: As the Doctor stated many times before, one cannot go back in one's own personal history so this possible origin VV is impossible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.142.136 (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ew. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ew what? I am confusèd. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 00:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Why was Dimensions in Time removed from this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ken Arromdee (talk • contribs) 07:22, August 28, 2006  (UTC)
:Dunno, but it was obviously restored at some point. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimensions in Time 

message: In Background is this sentence:
The original outline for the series did not intend for the pair to be related, but writer Anthony Coburn created the family tie as he was disturbed by the possible sexual connotations of an old man travelling alone with a teenage girl.
And yet, in Relationship to the Doctor, is this:
...it is clear that the original programme-makers' intent was that the two were biologically related.
These statements contradict themselves; either originally they intended her to be his granddaughter, or they didn't. Which is true? Neither have citations - Weebiloobil 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to have been corrected, though I don't know who by - c'est la vie - Weebiloobil (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intent 

message: In Series 4 Episode 6, We meet Jenny, who is the doctors daughter, it is unknown if she is the doctors biologoical daughter yet because the episode has not yet aired, should we add something about jenny to this article? Harmless 77 (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably best to wait until we learn if Jenny is Susan's mother or aunt. DonQuixote (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

message: I don't have any of the Target books anymore, but I remember reading one or two in the early '80s (I don't remember which story or stories, or know when the books were written) where they wrote Susan thinking of the Doctor as "the man she called Grandfather", which would imply that maybe he wasn't.  Does anyone else recall anything like this?  --Logotu (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Timelords live so long that The Doctor and Susan could be brother and sister.  She would just be calling him grandfather to hide the age difference from humans.  Just a thought.   Andrew Swallow (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was probably the novelisation of either the Dalek Invasion of Earth or the Five Doctors, both by Terrance Dicks. Contrary to some of the claims above the idea that Susan wasn't actually the Doctor's granddaughter has been around since at least 1972 when it was introduced in The Making of Doctor Who by Dicks and Malcolm Hulke, notably leaving her out completely in the chapter on the Doctor's origins and suggesting it was just a term of endearment elsewhere (in fact the complete lack of any mention of Susan in the War Games suggests that as early as 1969 the same authors did not feel any need to adhere to her being his actual granddaughter) and Dicks continued to push this in subsequent years in his novelisations and the script for The Five Doctors. The Making, even more than many of the actual episodes, had a massive impact when fandom started organising itself in the next few years and often became the gospel word on canon even either it contradicted stuff from before Dicks's time on the show or when subsequent episodes disagreed with it. Come the 1980s it, via a fan continuity adviser, seems to have become one of the bedrocks of continuity followed by the production office in that decade. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Target novelizations 

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

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

message: Less Eric Seward's short story, it is possible that only a certain people from Gallifrey arise to the Time Lord / Time Lady status.  If this is the case, then Susan may just be from Gallifrey rather than being a Time Lady.  But either way is ok by me; if the article is changed back, it can remain as "Time Lady".Docob5 (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But the thing is that the race as a whole is called "Time Lords". I've changed it to "Time Lord". DonQuixote (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Lord / Time Lady 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Susan Foreman.  I managed to add archive links to 1 , out of the total 1 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.
Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct.  If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with  to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further.  Alternatively, you can also add  to keep me off the page's sources altogether.  Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources modified on [[Susan Foreman]] 

message: For reference, the 49th century bit deleted today comes from the "pilot" episode, a remounted version of "An Unearthly Child". It's widely available to see on DVDs of An Unearthly Child, but it didn't air until decades after it was made, and isn't part of the episode proper as aired in 1963. TardisTybort (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That is precisely what makes it WP:OR, WP:SYNTH as well as WP:SPECULATION. MarnetteD|Talk 23:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  49th century 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Susan Foreman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140322111800/http://benjamincook.net/writing/doctor-who-magazine/interviews-and-articles/who-on-earth-is/carole-ann-ford/ to http://benjamincook.net/writing/doctor-who-magazine/interviews-and-articles/who-on-earth-is/carole-ann-ford/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: It seems like this page is being undergoing some gatekeeping - literally seconds after I have edited it, on two very different occasions, the same individual has swooped in and completely removed the work. All mention of Susan's original conception as "Princess Suzanne", and how this was reworked as part of a 2004 novel, and the 2015-2017 references to her as the President's daughter have all be removed without valid explanation. Also, this individual likes to think of this page as *television only* and wants any outside of television information (like her married name of Campbell) to be listed as such. Why is this? Connorguy99 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to be able to handle constructive criticism, as well as avoid original research. Some of the things that you have added are unencyclopaedic and need to be reigned in. Other things need to cite secondary sources because you're making assumptions of your own (even though they might be true, they need to be verifiable). I explained why some of the things have been trimmed in the edit summaries. If you want to contest them, then do so individually so that we can reach a consensus. DonQuixote (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Constructive criticism" - that's what you call sneakily pretending to change minor things to somebody's work, while over the course of several edits removing the work in its entirety? Nothing I wrote was based on assumptions, all was correctly sourced - all was vandalised repeatedly. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, it's not always about you. As I've mentioned, you would need to cite reliable sources for some of those things. You would need to cite a source that the 2004 novel was based on an unpublished script, for one. It's the process that all edits must undergo. I'm just asking you to do a little bit of work for the things that need to be verified. DonQuixote (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What isn't always about me? I'm asking you to either engage with others, or help change the FACTUAL work, not remove it in its entirety seconds after publishing. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The factual work can stay, your unsourced interpretations and connections need to be trimmed unless you can cite reliable secondary sources that make those observations. And everything is stored in the edit history, which can be restored once you provided the secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Gatekeeping