Talk:Weeping Angel: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary
No edit summary
Tag: 2017 source edit
 
(63 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==What to do if you are chased by a Weeping Angel==
{{ArchCat}}
Go to the nearest Mirror. Make sure you don't need to hold it, and the Angel is not in Weeping Pose, but is looking at you. Duck! It will look at its reflection. An image of a Weeping Angel will become a Weeping Angel. They are frozen forever. If you do it wrong, you have two Weeping Angels chasing you. -Tom


You could always just get them all in one place then lob a nade. It would be very affective.- Jasper
== 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. [[User:Ensephylon|Ensephylon]] [[User talk:Ensephylon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:15, April 27, 2013 (UTC)


==When are they quantum locked?==
== Contradiction? ==
I disagree about the blinking analogy to the quantum locking. From my understanding if a sentient creature is observing them they automatically become quantum locked and have no control over this. However they also act quantum locked if they think they are being observed, and can become quantum locked at any time. They are always quantum locked if the are being observed, but can decide whether they are or not at all other times. I think of the scene where they do not move when they think that Amy is watching them as being similar to when Amy's hand "turns to stone". It makes no difference to her whether it is stone or not, and she acts as if it was, as she believes it is. Similarly it makes no difference to the Angels that they are not actually being observed as they think they are, and so act accordingly. I assume that if you suddenly turned to stone every time something looked at you you would become resigned to the idea and stop trying to move when something is looking at you. I think that's a better explanation, but can't edit it in myself. The one at the moment suggests that the Angels could move if someone was looking at them, which would be completely against the whole idea, whereas this explanation facilitates both.
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. —[[User:Frungi|Frungi]] [[User talk:Frungi|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 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". [[User:Anoted|Anoted]] [[User talk:Anoted|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 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. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:17, August 30, 2018 (UTC)


==Weaknesses==
== Christ the Redeemer: Harmless representation of a religious icon or the God of the Lonely Assassins? ==
The weaknesses section claims Angels observing each other would permanently quantum-lock both as stone, but this is never actually stated. Should the statues be moved by some outside force (i.e. a human) so they were no longer observing each other, it's possible they'd be free to move again.
==Hardwick?==
Who the hell is Hardwick? Can we please remove fan-made pictures...


What do you think? [[Usertalk:MoonshadowDark]]


== 2.3 Expansion ==


It's not fanmade. It's from ''A Ghost Story for Christmas,'' a short which aired on BBC's website featuring Jack Harkness narrating about Hardwick being stalked by the Angels. It featured footage of ''Blink''. Ultimately, the Angels get her and she gets warped back in time. [[User:MrCatharsis|MrCatharsis]] 21:38, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
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
[[Special:Contributions/87.66.133.105|87.66.133.105]]<sup>[[User talk:87.66.133.105#top|talk to me]]</sup> 00:24, June 24, 2013 (UTC)


==Who Needs Sleep==
Who needs it.{{Unsigned|DragonTrainer53 }}


Really? I must have totally missed that then. Sorry. :(
Also known as "scary bitches" I laughed.


I haven't seen it myself either but it's been documented in several places... Including [[A_Ghost_Story_for_Christmas  |here]]. [[User:MrCatharsis|MrCatharsis]] 21:14, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
== SCP-173's heir? ==


==What happened to this page?==
Wait, Isn't the weeping angel a homage to SCP-173? {{unsigned-anon|99.101.151.15}}


tried to revert it but was denied several time can anyone revert it ?
== 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!
[[User:Gs97|Gs97]] [[User talk:Gs97|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 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. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:19, August 30, 2018 (UTC)


[[User:Assassin of death|Assassin of death]] 12:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
== Behind the scenes moving? ==
Assassin of death
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. [[User:TroopDude|TroopDude]] [[User talk:TroopDude|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:20, August 15, 2014 (UTC)


:The problem is that undoing an edit in the manner attempted undoes the last edit, but not the one previous to that. In this instance there have been two editors making changes to this article.
== 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.{{Unsigned|173.226.248.50}}


:To revert back to the last unaffected page edit look back through the article's history for the last uncorrupted edit, click on the revision within the page history (which will take you to the history edit point, then click 'edit' (there will be warning at the top of the page warning you you're editing an out of date revision, put in the edit summary 'reverting vandalism to last unaffected edit' (or something to that affect and click save page. This will revert the page back to the previous unaffected edit. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 13:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks for the heads up. It took more effort to post that than it would to remove the word "when".--{{User:Skittles the hog/sig}} 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.--[[User:Xx-connor-xX|Xx-connor-xX]] [[User talk:Xx-connor-xX|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 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.  --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:20, August 30, 2018 (UTC)


Ah thanks.
== CIA hacking toll  ==
[[User:Assassin of death|Assassin of death]] 10:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[[User:Assassin of death|Assassin of death]] 12:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Assassin of death


Is it worth mentioning that the CIAs have used the name weeping angel for on of there recent hacking tolls{{unsigned-anon|95.147.32.223}}
: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?{{User:SOTO/sig}} 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" [http://www.texasescapes.com/Cemeteries/Three-Weeping-Angels.htm 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. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 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. "[http://mashable.com/2017/03/07/cia-samsung-tv-hack-weeping-angel/#0ItghaQZKmqz WikiLeaks alleges the CIA developed the tool with MI5, Britain's equivalent of the FBI, which probably explains where the name came from.]"{{User:SOTO/sig}} 22:51, March 11, 2017 (UTC)


I saw the trailer and im definately sure they will return =D [[User:Sclera1|Sclera1]] 11:24, January 3, 2010 (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{{unsigned-anon|95.147.32.223}}
:::"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 [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]]/[[MI5]].{{User:SOTO/sig}} 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. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 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 [[Special:Contributions/95.147.32.223|95.147.32.223]]<sup>[[User talk:95.147.32.223#top|talk to me]]</sup> 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?{{User:SOTO/sig}} 23:38, March 11, 2017 (UTC)


==Year of choice?==
==Why did you delete all the weeping angles you idiot now I've got to do it all over again==
I removed a statement that said the Doctor stated each Angel had a year of choice to which to send their victims. I have literally watched Blink a dozen times and there is no such line of dialogue? Where does it come from? I've removed it for now until someone can provide a source (maybe he mentions it in a novel or audio, in which case we can put it back). [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 20:40, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
{{unsigned|Mr bootel}}


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. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 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. --[[User:Borisashton|Borisashton]] [[User talk:Borisashton|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:21, January 21, 2019 (UTC)


I imagine that's the case. It would certainly make the angels more interesting. Also, what would happen if you set up a recording system and a Weeping Angel entered its range, do you think? [[Special:Contributions/79.65.78.200|79.65.78.200]] 14:01, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
== How do you kill a weeping angel? ==


I saw a clip (In Doctor Who: The Ultimate Guide I believe) that showed a video camera on a Weeping Angel, that cut out for a second to just fuzz, cut back to the Angel which had moved closer and was no longer covering its eyes, cut to fuzz, and back to the Angel which was even closer and reaching for the camera. I assume it was doing to the camera what one had done to a light-bulb. Whether someone was on the other side of the camera, or even in a security room somewhere watching it, I don't know, but it's quite possible that a video camera would have the ability to freeze an Angel, at least as long as someone's observing on the other end.[[User:MrCatharsis|MrCatharsis]] 20:43, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
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?? {{Unsigned-anon|90.145.233.147}}
 
 
 
Well now we know what happens when you record an angel. That which holds its image becomes an angel. Make sense, that picture you took will appear to be in stone because you are looking at it. My question is this: '''Do Daleks blink?''' If so we have a problem, if not Daleks would completely destroy the angels. - DontEatRawHagis April 20-ish something.
 
: I Don't think a Dalek blinks but I'm not sure which is worse, a Dalek or an Angel.[[User:OMEGATRON|OMEGATRON]] 18:18, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
Dalek Caan blinks in Parting of the Ways. Also, they would have to turn around at some point. The real issue would be if an angel was strong enough to tear through Dalekanium. If not, they'd be set at a stalemate. [[Special:Contributions/79.66.10.129|79.66.10.129]] 15:53, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 
== Time Lords? ==
 
When I was watching The End of Time, it seemed like the two Time Lords punished by the President had the demeanor similar to Weeping Angels.
 
 
I further point you in The End of Time (Part II) to roughly 36:46 minutes in, "Only two stand against, and will stand as monument to their shame. The weeping angels of old.", The President
 
 
 
New_ As you can see they are emulating the Weeping Angels they arent actually angels. - DontEatRawHagis
 
== continuity error ==
 
 
 
 
in blink if angels see eachother they turn to stone but in the newer episodes that doesn't happen .the weakness dissapears
 
 
 
well 1, its good to sign your name, and to answer that, idk what it is :/. Ive also got a theory that in Blink, when the angels see each other, they turn to stone, so they cant see anything anymore, thereby unlocking it and being able to move but they see each other then stone again....probably just my observation or theory :/[[User:Ooiue|Ooiue]] 10:17, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 
== Bok ==
 
The weeping angels seem similar to [[Bok]]. [[User:Liquid Ink|Liquid Ink]]10:20, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 
==Mysterious Time Lady==
You know in [[The End of Time (TV story)|The End of Time]], the Time Lady that was communicating to Wilf and then was beside Rassilon with her hand over her face, could that point towards the fact that Time Lord/Lady Genetic structure is similar to the Weeping Angel's (except the whole turning into stone), because in a sense she was projecting her image as an angel might. Could it be that on Gallifrey the utmost punishment is to become a Lonely Assassin?
[[User:Bioleader|Bioleader]] 11:17, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 
== Revival Of The Angels ==
 
When the cracks were sealed in [[The Big Bang]], everything they absorbed was restored. Does that mean that the Weeping Angels have returned to [[Alfava Metraxis]]? --[[User:Bowser the Second|Bowser the Second]] 03:33, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
 
: By the logic of the whole thing I'd probably have to go with yes, yes they should have. But as it's Tv and it would be too inconvenient, I doubt they will have. <span style="color:green;">'''Lyco'''</span> 04:58, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
:.
:You're forgetting one thing...the timey wimey bits.... [[User:Dusty.crockett|Dusty.crockett]] 04:11, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
 
==Confused==
It confused me quite a bit that it was a big part of the Weeping Angels' story that they displace people through time in order to feed on that person's potential life energy, as stated by the Doctor in Blink (and the article). However, when the angels reapered in The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone they just killed people. Yet early on in The Time of Angels when the first two clerics encounter the angel, you get a shot when the "angel cleric" is talking on the radio of the caves and you can clearly see the legs of a cleric who is lying dead on the ground and then later in Flesh and Stone when Father Octavian is trapped by the Angel you can hear it move it's arm as if to crush his neck when the Doctor moves on. So my confusion stems from the Angel's sudden change of tactics, why do they suddenly only kill? What do they achieve by this (other than "fun" as Angel Bob would put it)? There are very few, if any, mentions of transporting people through time in the S5 episode's yet many deaths and quotes like "The Angels can only kill you" etc. Anyone have any ideas? =/ <span style="color:green;">'''Lyco'''</span> 04:53, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 
:Because they're trained professionals from a spacefaring civilization. If they ''were'' trapped in the past, they could still probably contact someone and then be able to plan out an attack on the Angels, especially if these Angels were the decayed ones in the past. The soldiers were too dangerous to keep alive, even in the past. In any case, the Angels were feeding on the energy from the ship and probably weren't hungry. -<[[User:Azes13|Azes13]] 05:02, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
:
:===Problem===
:
:If any image of an angel becomes itself an angel,how come,in Blink, Sally Sparrow give the Doctor a photo of a weeping angel and nothing happens?[[Special:Contributions/78.151.86.45|78.151.86.45]] 11:00, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
:
==Angels Defeated Themselves==
The article says the Doctor disabled the Byzantium's gravity, but I seem to recall, the ship lost its gravity when the angels had drained its power to the point it was no longer supported. You have to appreciate the irony. unrelated aside--one of my favorite Doctor quotes: "A hay-like needle of death in a haystack of..." ] [[User:Dusty.crockett|Dusty.crockett]] 04:26, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
 
==Alternate Angel Theory==
When the Angels fell into the Time Crack on the Byzantium, the crack was then sealed. When the Doctor flew the Pandorica into the exploding TARDIS, the cracks that were still open expelled whatever they absorbed and were sealed. Because the Byzantium crack was sealed prior to this event, could that mean that the Weeping Angels are still trapped inside of it. [[User:Bowser the Second|Bowser the Second]] 05:55, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:13, 25 January 2024

Archive.png
 Archives: #1

How does statue become a weeping angel?[[edit source]]

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?[[edit source]]

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?[[edit source]]

What do you think? Usertalk:MoonshadowDark

2.3 Expansion[[edit source]]

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 87.66.133.105talk to me 00:24, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

Who Needs Sleep[[edit source]]

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

Also known as "scary bitches" I laughed.

SCP-173's heir?[[edit source]]

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?[[edit source]]

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?[[edit source]]

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[[edit source]]

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[[edit source]]

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[[edit source]]

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 95.147.32.223talk 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[[edit source]]

– 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?[[edit source]]

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).

Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weeping_Angel&oldid=3697804"