Talk:Adam Mitchell (Doctor Who)

untitled

I don't think Nottingham's correct, is it? Davies certainly said in a Production Notes column that the mention of Nottingham in a future script had been replaced with Manchester. Angmering 11:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Is Adam the Bad Wolf?

Seeing as how the Doctor abandoned him back in 2012 with a futuristic implant, I think Adam is pretty peeved off with him.

And isn't all the Big Brother/Weakest link stuff taking place on Station 5?

There is one problem with this theory. I haven't seen Bruno Langley's name in the Radio Times cast for "Bad Wolf"...

Topic for Discussion

Does making one trip with the Doctor (it appears clear that the Tardis goes straight from Van Statten's underground base to the Long Game station) give Adam the status of Companion ? He appears rather to be Rose's pet, given that it is she who brings him aboard and she who, finally, turns down his plea to be taken back after his betrayal. --Simon Cursitor 09:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Part of it is authorial intent - Adam was referred to as a "new companion" by the production team, and it is clear that it is the Doctor who rejects him ("I only take the best" [my emphasis]), not just Rose. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The article says "Adam is the first companion to never have any scenes inside the TARDIS." I don't recall Liz Shaw ever having any scenes in the TARDIS. The Doctor trotted out the TARDIS console in "Inferno", but all these scenes were clearly filmed in UNIT HQ. --Peter Niemeyer 12:40, 1 July 2007

"evidently not the bad wolf"

This quote about Adam in relation to the third eye:

"Much fan speculation surrounded a possible return of Adam at the end of the 2005 series, conjuring a scenario where he used the advanced technology to manipulate events, gain the knowledge of time travel and perhaps even rebuild the Daleks after the Time War. Many even went as far as hypothesising that he was an earlier version of Davros (the implant in his head eventually becoming Davros's third eye). When the Dalek Emperor appeared in The Parting of the Ways, however, it was evidently neither Adam nor Davros."

It seems a bit irrelevant as the Dalek Emperor was not actually supposed to be Davros; and it also seems to be conjecture or theorising. Theorising is great, but Adam being Davros is neither a proven or disproven fact... so I just think this could be worded better; thought I'd state my reasons for rewording before doing so.~CortalYX^Talk? 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd support removing the paragraph entirely — it's uncited speculation, which we normally discourage. It's true that there was a lot of fan chatter during Series 1 about Adam being Davros, but I don't think it's necessary to mention it here, unless it's been reported in some reliable source. I'm actually surprised that paragraph has lasted this long. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations and out of universe info

Okay, I've added what I've been able to find about Adam from the relevant Doctor Who Confidential episode and the book Doctor Who: The Inside Story. I even got my husband to dig out the full-length version of Confidential, but there was nothing much about Adam in it that wasn't in the Cut Down version. Although I have not listened to the whole commentary for "The Long Game" (not tonight, anyway), it's not sounding promising. Even so, I'm almost certain I've heard, seen or read more from RTD, sometime, somewhere, about the character's departure from the usual companion role. Anyone else find anything, maybe from another book, commentary or Confidential? --Karen | Talk | contribs 06:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Where should this article be merged?

It was nominated for deletion recently, and the conclusion was that Adam isn't an important enough character to deserve his own article, and so this should be merged into some other article. However, it's not clear where is the best place to merge it; my suggestion is that the content in this article can be split between Dalek (Doctor Who episode), The Long Game and Companion (Doctor Who)#Disputed companions, with brief commentary about Adam in each. Does anyone have any other suggestions? Terraxos (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't, as it now passes WP:FICT. Will ^(talk) 19:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I renominated the article, and it has been decided that we should merge it to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Harry Blue5 (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Yunshui (talk · contribs) 08:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

After languishing in mergey purgatory for a couple of years, this article has been expanded and spruced up very nicely.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is good, excellent in places; grammar and spelling are fine; in-universe information is presented correctly. Generally compliant with MOS, however the citation style should be consistent; at present there's a mixture of short citations and named references in the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   A good spread of references - possibly a bit heavy on primary sources, but with sufficient third-party sources to provide balance. A couple of sources (Digital Spy and Den of Geek) skirt the outer fringes of WP:RS, but IMHO, fall just within its boundaries. There doesn't appear to be any original research, in fact most sources are quoted verbatim for clarity.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article covers the major information about the character, without becoming bogged-down in in-universe detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral POV is maintained in the tone, and multiple critical sources with both positive and negative opinions are accurately represented.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Since being unmerged about a month ago, the article has been stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Whilst copyrighted, the infobox image has sufficient fair-use rationale to justify its use in the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The inconsistent citation style is easily fixed (I'll do it myself shortly), and since that's the only issue I can see, I'm callling this a Good Article. Nice work! Yunshui 雲‍水 08:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your time, and the review! Eshlare (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Adam Mitchell (Doctor Who). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/a20987/daleks-conquer-and-destroy.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sfx.co.uk/tv_reviews/doctor_who_the_long_game

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)