Talk:Weeping Angel

	Archives: #1

How does statue become a weeping angel?

I am assuming the French didnt create the weeping angel that is the Statue of Liberty so how did it become an angel

In "The Angels Take Manhattan", River says that the angels have "taken over" every statue in New York, so it could be that they can possess the statues, convert them somehow, or perhaps they could even be projecting their consciousness into the statues in order to animate them. Ensephylon ☎ 23:15, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Is there any explanation for the fact that, in The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone, the angels have no problem moving when they’re able to see each other? I thought Blink firmly established that they can’t. —Frungi ☎ 05:51, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

Are there eyes actually open in Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone? I remember seeing very limited use of the open eyes and I certainly don't remember enough open eyes to lock the angels. If you angel has their eyes open and is looking at other angels, those angels are quantum-locked. But the angel that's looking can close it's eyes unless someone looking at it is preventing that.

Also, there are very obvious issues with the angels. Sally Sparrow has photographs of the angels and looks at them in the eye which is a clear problem in regards to the later precept "that which holds the image of an angel becomes an angel". Anoted ☎ 10:07, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

Considering that second purported contradiction, I believe the thing here is that the image doesn't become a separate Weeping Angel — rather, it's a venue for the original Angel to project its consciousness. The Doctor states something to this effect when the effect is first introduced. So presumably, Sally Sparrow ended up vulnerable to such an attack but the pictured Angels decided not to exploit it. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:17, August 30, 2018 (UTC)

Christ the Redeemer: Harmless representation of a religious icon or the God of the Lonely Assassins?

What do you think? Usertalk:MoonshadowDark

2.3 Expansion

More a question than a contribution: how does it come that the weeping angels don't quantum lock each other in time of the angels? They are 'walking' right behind one another and do not even bother to put their hands over their faces like a proper weeping angel.

KBO 87.66.133.105^{talk to me} 00:24, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

Who Needs Sleep

Who needs it.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by DragonTrainer53 (talk • contribs) .

Also known as "scary bitches" I laughed.

SCP-173's heir?

Wait, Isn't the weeping angel a homage to SCP-173? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.101.151.15 (talk).

What really happened?

Hi, So I was wondering, if the Doctor had erased the Angels from existence (TV: The Time of Angels / Flesh and Stone), then why did Amy and Rory get sent back in time in The Angels Take Manhattan. Even after The Big Bang, it has been stated that previous events DID happen! Gs97 ☎ 15:46, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

He erased that particular group of Angels from time, so even if they didn't get restored in Big Bang 2, that doesn't mean the entire Weeping Angel species was erased. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:19, August 30, 2018 (UTC)

Behind the scenes moving?

This article's 'Behind the scenes' section claims that the Weeping Angels can slightly move even when being seen. When in Doctor Who did this happen, because I don't remember any example of this happening anywhere. TroopDude ☎ 11:20, August 15, 2014 (UTC)

not a sentence

This isn't a complete sentence, someone who cares should fix it: When Weeping Angels grew weaker from starvation, with the stone wearing away over years.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.226.248.50 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for the heads up. It took more effort to post that than it would to remove the word "when".--Skittles the hog - talk 14:15, November 17, 2014 (UTC)

You can't kill a stone

This comment is always made when talking about how powerful the Weeping Angels are but it makes no sense. You can easily "kill" or at the very least destroy a stone. Just use a sledgehammer to bash it's face in or to knock its arms off and you're sorted.--Xx-connor-xX ☎ 04:27, November 2, 2016 (UTC)

Good as Gold (TV story) actually does show the Doctor using a new setting on the Sonic to make the Angel's stone crumble, but the fragments magically piece them back together a few moments later. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:20, August 30, 2018 (UTC)

CIA hacking toll

Is it worth mentioning that the CIAs have used the name weeping angel for on of there recent hacking tolls– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.147.32.223 (talk).

That is actually a good question. Yes, I think that would be worthy of inclusion in the BTS section; I didn't even think to add that. Is anyone knowledgeable about this topic up to writing it out?
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 22:15, March 11, 2017 (UTC)

For me the real question is: did they base it on DW Weeping Angels or on the statues, which are called "weeping angels" outside of DW. I agree, the coincidence is suspicious. Moreover, the TV's behaviour seems to mimic that of a DW Weeping Angel. But I suspect, CIA is not going to issue a press-release with the name of the episode that inspired them. Amorkuz ☎ 22:32, March 11, 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha, I suppose not. Thank you for joining us; always a pleasure. I did not consider that they might have been referencing real world weeping angels, but I suspect not. I mean, some nerd at the CIA made a nerd reference, most likely. Sort of reminds me of that scene with Amy. "WikiLeaks alleges the CIA developed the tool with MI5, Britain's equivalent of the FBI, which probably explains where the name came from."
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 22:51, March 11, 2017 (UTC)

if it helps this is the BBC news article on it which is illustrated with a weeping angle and says the name is intentional and even mentions that there's another one named after the sontarans used on Skype http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39219637– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.147.32.223 (talk).

"The name could have been chosen 'because you think it is not alive but it is, you think it isn't doing anything but it is' says Alan Woodward". Ha! This. Anyway, it does seem to most likely be a Doctor Who reference, on part of the CIA/MI5.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 22:54, March 11, 2017 (UTC)

I have a proposal on how to write it. I think claiming that CIA/MI5 based on Weeping Angels is not entirely justified: most articles hedge their bets, if you read them carefully. However, the provided article from BBC, I think, provides a perfect cover. It is completely justified to claim that BBC recognised the name as originating from Doctor Who. Amorkuz ☎ 23:01, March 11, 2017 (UTC)

I've found two other pages that talk about sontaran hacking tool https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/according-to-vault-7-the-cia-are-nerds-who-can-rui.html https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_524426.html 95.147.32.223^{talk to me} 23:10, March 11, 2017 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Amorkuz. Either only mention the BBC News article (I think this is the best option), or have various sources for news articles claiming this to be a Doctor Who reference. Either way, this deserves its own short section in the BTS of Weeping Angel. Is anyone up to writing it?
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 23:38, March 11, 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete all the weeping angles you idiot now I've got to do it all over again

– The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr bootel (talk • contribs) .

The above post violates Tardis:No personal attacks. Accordingly, User:Mr bootel is blocked. Please, remember that personal attacks will not be tolerated. No matter the reason. Amorkuz ☎ 17:50, January 21, 2019 (UTC)

To answer the user's rather rude enquiry, displaying six individual angels one under another simply as "Weeping Angel" is unhelpful to the reader and goes against the parameter in regard to notability. --Borisashton ☎ 19:21, January 21, 2019 (UTC)

How do you kill a weeping angel?

Shooting with a gun in the dark does'nt work, because a gun gives light when fired and using a sword gets you touched, so how do you kill an angel?? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.145.233.147 (talk).