|
|
| (256 intermediate revisions by 71 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Talk Page}}
| |
| {{ArchCat}} | | {{ArchCat}} |
| == is river the Little girl? ==
| |
| I don't think the little girl in the astronaut suit from [[Day of the Moon]] should be included in this article, as we do not know for sure that it is her[[User:Lord Aro|Lord Aro]] 20:23, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| :Completely agreed. Nothing says that the little girl is River. For all we know the little girl is River and the Doctor's child, hence why she's seen that cot before... and why he then knew they would be kissing. Nothing at all says that River is the child, or that Madam Kovarian was working with the Silence. --[[User:The Thirteenth Doctor|The Thirteenth Doctor]] 20:38, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| ::The flashback where the Doctor was piecing things together stated that the girl was River, well Melody it was at the time. --[[User:Revanvolatrelundar|Revan]]\[[User_talk:Revanvolatrelundar|Talk]] 20:39, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| :::But that's the thing... we don't know it is. All we know is that the little girl is part Time Lord... not that she is definitely River... we're still presuming that the little girl ''is'' Melody... --[[User:The Thirteenth Doctor|The Thirteenth Doctor]] 21:42, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| ::::In that case any mention of the he little girl should be removed as it is just speculation until confirmed otherwise - we should only be detailing the confirmed facts.[[Special:Contributions/95.145.220.97|95.145.220.97]] 00:11, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| ::::
| |
| ::::Would someone mind explaining the fact that in the little girl's room, among pictures of her, was a picture of Amy holding Melody/River? Because it's her. Would anyone also mind explaining why whenever discussing Melody, there were flashbacks to the little girl? What about the reference to Melody/River being able to possibly regenerate? Or how it was stated that the little girl was a human, and yet we saw her regenerate? Human plus Time Lord. For crying out loud, the little girl is Melody/River, how more obvious could it get? Why, among there her pictures, would she have a picture of Amy holding Melody/River? Why flashback to the girl when talking about Melody/River? Some people are so stubborn. [[Special:Contributions/90.199.247.156|90.199.247.156]] 03:45, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| :::::I've got a picture of my grandmother holding my father as a baby. Does that actually mean my grandmother is actually my mother? I don't think so. Why were the flashbacks related to her? Because that's what the Doctor was ''thinking''... not what was true... and like the Doctor said.... it's ''possible'' she could regenerate... not ''definite''. It's entirely possible that the little girl is the Doctor and River's child... nothing has been concretely said that it is her. If you can just go with the implication that the little girl is River... I want it also stated on the page that the Doctor and River are lovers... cause that's been implied as well. --[[User:The Thirteenth Doctor|The Thirteenth Doctor]] 12:12, June 5, 2011 (UTC) | | == Revisiting the split pages decision == |
| :::::::I totally agree that the little girl is Melody/River. It would be absurd for her not to be. It is true that some are stubborn. Perhaps there is some merit in being "sure of the facts" but I think we are as sure as we can be. In the event that a blinder is pulled, the facts can always been changed. Perhaps a solution would be to say that '''it very much appears '''to be the case that the little girl is River, for the reasons explained by the person two paragrapshs above me. But we all know the internet... | | Almost ten years ago, [[Forum:River Song incarnations or full page?|it was decided]] that River incarnations were to be all merged under a single page. However, more recent decision led me to propose we split the River pages again into new incarnations. They are as follow: |
| :::::::: Just because when The Doctor was piecing together little bits of information regarding Melody and thinking about the little girl does not make them the same person - its just where his mind and ours have gone, due to all the facts that are available - you have to remember, The Doctor doesn't the little girl regenerated only the homeless man knows that - and he wont know for sure what was going on. The question was "could she regenrated" the doctor thought and replied "maybe" I dont see that as confirmation that they are the same! Those flash backs were for our, the viewers interests, probably to make us think the little girl is indeed River. Is she, well who knows? So far we are led to beleive so, but until we have confirmation we can't be sure - who knows - the the little girl could be a child of Rivers and the Doctors - its not uncommon for there to be pictures of a grandparent holding a grand child - and we have as much fact to say this is the case too! Also, did anyone watch confidential? Im fairly sure that Moffat mentioned something in the episode about "who is the little girl?" this makes me think there might be more to it that "she is a younger River Song" - but hey who knows? just be patient guys - if you are indeed right, it will get put in [[Special:Contributions/95.145.221.134|95.145.221.134]] 01:53, June 6, 2011 (UTC) | | * Put simply, [[River Song]] is a name that applies '''only''' to her third incarnation. It's as wrong to call the baby Amy gave birth to, or the young girl that was Amy and Rory's childhood friend "River Song" than it would be to call the incarnation of the Doctor who fought in the Time War by "Twelfth Doctor", "the Curator" or "War Curator", even though these are all names used by future versions of him. In fact, this was one of the reasons I argued so hard that [[the Eleven]]'s incarnations absolutely ''could not'' have a single page a few years ago. The same surely applies to River. |
| | * As has been done with several Time Lords recently, splitting their incarnations into a single page allows better coverage ''and'' readability. |
| | * Naming the majority of pages regarding this character would be extremely easy (something which was argued otherwise in the original discussion). It's very explicit that River/Melody had three incarnations: |
| | ** From birth to the [[User:OncomingStorm12th/Little girl (The Impossible Astronaut)|little girl]] from ''The Impossible Astronaut'' we see regenerating on the streets of New York |
| | ** [[User:OncomingStorm12th/Mels Zucker|Mels Zucker]], who grew up alongside her parents |
| | ** [[User:OncomingStorm12th/River Song|River Song]] her third and final incarnation |
| | * Now, that only leaves the problem of whether to use "Melody Pond" to her first incarnation or the overall page. As Mels also uses the name on her deathbed, and River Song also uses her real name on [[A Good Man Goes to War (TV story)]] to reveal her true identity, I'd vote for keeping [[Melody Pond]] for [[User:OncomingStorm12th/Melody Pond|the overall page]], while using "little girl" for the first incarnation (as she was credited as such). |
| | * Mind you, it wouldn't be the first time we use credits/conjectural names for a Time Lord splitting, as per [[Renegade Time Lord (The Eleven)]]. And, like that page, the bad term also happens to describe the exact subject we're talking about, as River/Melody was also ''the'' Impossible Astronaut. |
|
| |
|
| :It's quite an absurd suggestion that the show's creators would use flashbacks as a narrative device to tell us that the girl is Melody, and then, four months (or more) after the fact, use a 'gotcha' reveal that there are in fact two abducted-by-hostile-forces-childhood-connection-to-Amy-time-lady girls running around. I would have great difficulty coming up with such an example of poor story telling in any modern TV show.
| | As always, feel free to make any further suggestions and/or edit my sandbox pages. [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC) |
| :I agree that some degree of skepticism should be employed and speculation avoided, but there are limits. We can't write articles to accommodate all possible outlandish theories; we have to go with what we have been shown.--[[User:BBCXI|BBCXI]] 22:39, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| ::While I agree, that it does sound far fetched that there will be two abducted-by-hostile-forces-childhood-connection-to-Amy-time-lady girls running around and the little girl will probably turn out to be River - the fact remains nowhere has it been confirmed that they are indeed the same person, people are arguing the flashbacks are good enoughevidence. But they really are not. The Wikia doesnt deal with speculation, just fact and until there has been confirmation, actual spoken confirmation - it will only ever be speculation that they are indeed the same and as such should be left from the article....
| |
| ::The same thing happened last year, with the aparent continuity error with the Doctors Jacket in the forest - it was quite clearly a future Doctor, however until actual proof came in the last episode it couldn't be put in its respected article[[Special:Contributions/80.193.71.144|80.193.71.144]] 10:03, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| ::
| |
| ::
| |
| ::Yeesh! Think about! Why would the Doctor have a flashback to the little girl in America and River's discription of her, hmm? This means that the little girl IS River, making it a completely logical reason to merge her page into River's. There can;t be another person with Time Lord DNA besides her and the full Time Lord Doctor. [[User:Forgetful 10th doctor fan|Forgetful 10th doctor fan]] 19:59, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| :::I'm sorry, but thats absolute rubbish! The Doctor did not have the Flashback! He didn't even see the girl regenerate and correct me if I am wrong, but no where has it been stated Melody/River could. Just that it was possible. The flashback was for our purpose..As stated to make us think they are the same and in all honesty it looks to be working - as I have said before I think River and The Little girl will probably be the same person, however it can't beput in the article, we don't have the confirmation and they have about the same ammount of chance to be different people. [[Special:Contributions/95.145.221.134|95.145.221.134]] 22:03, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ::*You've highlighted the exact problem, that you have to "think about it". Until there is explicit proof (which we currently do not have beyond supposition from a flashback), it's speculation. '''<font color=#609000>d</font> [[User:Witoki|<font color=#609000>●</font>]][[User_talk:Witoki|<font color=#FF6090>●</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Witoki|<font color=#6090FF>●</font>]]''' 20:07, June 8, 2011 (UTC) | | : I am in support of this split. I agree that [[Melody Pond]] should go to [[User:OncomingStorm12th/Melody Pond|the overall page]] as it was used by all incarnations to a degree. [[User:Bongolium500|Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500)]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC) |
| : This is not the same as the Doctor's jacket. That was a small teaser inserted for the eagle eyed viewer, and even though it seemed like a future Doctor, we could not be sure. What did seem obvious was that it was put there for our amusement and theorising. Moffat wanted us to debate it. He wanted it to be controversial The issue of the Little Girl has been put beyond reasonable speculation now. The links are clear. To anyone with an iota of logic, we're not supposed to be left in doubt. After all, to pull the rug on us now and say that the girl isn't River would just be illogical and detract from the story. By refusing to sanction a merger, all that is being achieved is an exercise in pedanticism.[[User:JoelJoel321|JoelJoel321]] 21:30, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| :: No - this is the same thing as The Doctors Jacket. countless people argued it was too much to be a continuity error and as you put it "a small teaser for the eagle eyes viewer" did it get put in? Yes! but only after we had confirmation at the end of the series. My point was while there seems to be a lot of evidence to suggest the girl and river are one and the same - theres no actual confirmation and until we get it. It can not go in [[Special:Contributions/95.145.221.134|95.145.221.134]] 22:03, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| ::
| |
| :: Here is all the evidence we have to them been the same person:
| |
| :: 1 They are both time ladies and could regenerate (it was never confirmed River could).
| |
| :: 2 The picture in the girls room of Amy holding a baby.
| |
| :: 3 The flashback the doctor had.
| |
| : It is not beyond the limits of belief to have Moffet lead us down the wrong route and the Doctor has less proof they are the same person than we have.
| |
| : Also having two young Time Ladies is not impossible. What could be better than useing one Time Lady as a weapon? How about two.
| |
| : As for the picture, I have just realised its biggest oddity of WHEN could it have been taken? Korvain took Melody of Amy before she had a chance to take it and there was no time after getting the flesh copy. --[[Special:Contributions/82.11.57.232|82.11.57.232]] 19:55, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| :...Amy had Melody for a month after her birth and before Korvain took her. Plenty of time for a quick photo. --[[User:Bold Clone|<span style="color:darkblue">'''Bold'''</span>]] [[User Talk:Bold Clone|<span style="color:gold">'''Clone'''</span>]] 20:11, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| :
| |
| :Actually, the thought occurred to me this week. There are all those pictures of the little girl in the little girl's room. Does anyone keep a picture of herself among her keepsakes?. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] 16:07, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Sydney Wade== | | :: I don't have a problem with the split, and I agree that Melody Pond would be best for the overall page name. [[User:LauraBatham|LauraBatham]] [[User talk:LauraBatham|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| It's not yet definitely confirmed that the Little Girl is River. Sydney Wade should be removed from the infobox. - [[User:Sikon|Sikon]] 07:26, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
| | ::: I also think this is a good idea, but why not use Melody Pond for both the main page ''and'' her first incarnation? "Little girl" will have to be dabbed anyway, so why not use [[Melody Pond (The Impossible Astronaut)]] instead? [[User:Danochy|Danochy]] [[User talk:Danochy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 12:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC) |
| | :::: I think 'Little Girl' is better for the incarnations navigation template. It accords both with the credits of the episode, with dialogue to an extent (the characters do call her "the Little Girl" for lack of a better term at some points in the script of ''[[The Impossible Astronaut (TV story)|The Impossible Astronaut]]''/''[[Day of the Moon (TV story)|Day of the Moon]]''), ''and'' with how non-Wiki-editing fans would usually speak of her if discussing River's incarnations. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 12:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Done----<u>[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small></u> 10:41, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
| | ::::: With the template, sure, but [[:Template:Rassilons|templates needn't use just page names]]. The name "Melody Pond" is more accurate than "little girl" in that regard, especially in light of her other appearance (albeit as a [[The Flesh|Flesh]] clone for most(?) of her on-screen time) where her identity as Melody is quite important. Also I just realised that her first appearance is actually [[Prequel (The Impossible Astronaut)]] which rather throws a spanner in the works for that dabbing. [[User:Danochy|Danochy]] [[User talk:Danochy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| The little girl is obviously her! The Doctor SAID it! The little girl REGENERATED! MELODY WAS A TIME LORD! Jeez. - [[User:BillyWilliam3rd]] 20:12, June 5, 2011 (UTC) | | : When I was thinking on how to title the first incarnation page, I cycled through <nowiki>[[Little girl (The Impossible Astronaut)]], [[Melody Pond (The Impossible Astronaut)]] and [[Melody Pond's first incarnation]]</nowiki>, but went with the former because it was the only one of these to already exist. In all honesty, I'm happy with either options. |
| | : As for the technicality of [[Prequel (The Impossible Astronaut)]].... yeah, it's not optimal. Using DPL, the only match for a page dabbed with a prequel is [[Silent (Prequel to The Impossible Astronaut)|Silent (Prequel (The Impossible Astronaut))]], so we ''could'' go with <nowiki>[[Little girl (Prequel (The Impossible Astronaut))]] or [[Melody Pond (Prequel (The Impossible Astronaut))]]</nowiki>, but I half-think we "overlook" this mistake, in order to achieve a simpler dab and avoid the double parenthesis. [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Maybe. Another hypothesis is that she is the daughter of the Doctor and River -- River was nauseated during THE IMPOSSIBLE ASTRONAUT. Speculation is one thing, but proof is another. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] 11:19, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
| | :: Of course [[Melody Pond's first incarnation]] is a good option if we want to avoid the dabbing dilemma. But otherwise I'm also happy to overlook the prequel or to otherwise consider it a ''part'' of the TV story for the purposes of dabbing the character. [[User:Danochy|Danochy]] [[User talk:Danochy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Okay, to the previous guy, ARE YOU A MORON!? It;s obviosuly River we see in the opening two parter! Why else would there be a "near-human" little girl in the story if its not her!? ([[Special:Contributions/173.167.179.77|173.167.179.77]] 22:12, August 22, 2011 (UTC)) | | ::: Okay, hold the phone, where exactly did we get [[Prequel (The Impossible Astronaut)]] from ''anyway''? On the BBC website this is called [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00fxf06 ''The Prequel to Episode 1'']. That title's not going to win any awards, but we do have precedents for using such "functional" titles like we would normal titles, such as ''[[The Novel of the Film (novelisation)|The Novel of the Film]]'', so… why don't we call this thing [[The Prequel to Episode 1 (webcast)]]? Granted I'm not ''thrilled'' about the prospect of [[Little girl (The Prequel to Episode 1)]] but it wouldn't have any double-parentheses. |
|
| |
|
| :Cut the attitude, or I might block you. There is not an in-universe source that says the Little Girl in TIA/TDOTM is River, that's is yet to be confirmed. If you want to believe that it's River, that's fine, but we as a wiki need to wait until we have a solid statement. [[User:Mini-mitch|MM]]/<small>[[User talk:Mini-mitch|Want to talk?]]</small> 22:26, August 22, 2011 (UTC) | | ::: But… We also need to discuss the option of [[the Little Girl]]. There are other "little girls" in the DWU, but she ''is'' the only one whom the Doctor & friends referred to, for several months, over the course of ''[[The Impossible Astronaut (TV story)|The Impossible Astronaut]]''/''[[Day of the Moon (TV story)|Day of the Moon]]'', as ''the'' Little Girl. Interestingly, the adult River Song herself uses "the Little Girl" several times in dialogue in ''[[Day of the Moon (TV story)|Day of the Moon]]'', which is interesting if we want to talk self-identification… |
|
| |
|
| I don't believe I'm a moron, but of course, none of us do, and any of us could be mistaken. To answer your second question, the little girl could be a 'red herring', intended to lead the viewer to an incorrect conclusion. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] 22:24, August 22, 2011 (UTC) | | ::: Now granted, "The Little Girl" isn't intended to be, or presented as, a "the" name in quite the same way as "The Doctor" or even "[[The Editor]] — but I would point to [[The Woman (Hell Bent)]] and [[The Woman (The End of Time)]] as precedents for using the credited "the Something" descriptor as a page name even though it's unlikely the characters would introduce themselves with "Hello, I'm usually referred to as the Woman". Also, the way we titled our page about [[Tzim-Sha]] "[[Tim Shaw]]" for quite some time, for as long as we lacked certainty on the spelling of "Tzim-Sha", is precedent for the idea that when the other potential names are unviable,- we do sometimes use the name Team TARDIS give an entity, even if we have reason to suspect the entity called itself something else. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC) |
| == Human Plus ==
| |
|
| |
|
| We know that biologically speaking, River is essentially [[human]]. What's more, they seem to suggest that Melody was not a proper [[Time Lady]], but rather she was born with the ability to [[regenerate]]. I would suggest removing Time Lady from her species information and either leaving her as just human, or creating a new article for the species "Human Plus". [[User:Witoki|Witoki]] 22:50, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
| | :::: I would much rather the prequel name stay as it is, to be honest, and just bend the first appearance dabbing rule (if we were to go down that road). There are a lot of "episode 1"s, making the searchability pretty poor. Though we could always name it "Prequel to The Impossible Astronaut", such as it is on imdb. [[User:LauraBatham|LauraBatham]] [[User talk:LauraBatham|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| <p style="margin-left: 40px">I agree! We dont actually know she has the ability to regenrate - the episode didnt confirm she could regenerate, just that it was possible. The episode then showed the little girl regenerating, however thats not what the Doctor was thinking at the time as he doesnt know that actually happened [[Special:Contributions/80.193.71.144|80.193.71.144]] 10:06, June 6, 2011 (UTC)</p>
| | ::::: I think that the Prequel(s) current name(s) just come from a lack of title cards, and if they're Prequels to release X, instinctively they're titled <nowiki>[[Prequel (release X)]]</nowiki> (that's certainly what I did when creating a few of the recent Big Finish ones) |
| :: In fact, until we have confirmation that River is the Little Girl from TIA/DooM, there's no reason to list "Time Lady" at all. [[User:Witoki|Witoki]] 17:54, June 6, 2011 (UTC) | | ::::: Now, as for using The Little Girl as a title... well, as you pointed you it could work, as precedent exists, but I think that works well enough '''''in the lack of any other names'''''. Like, if it was a random unnamed Time Lord Little Girl we saw regenerating, and then later in a spacesuit etc, I'd 100% agree with you. But as soon as we learn that Little Girl is actually Melody Pond/River as a little girl (sans capital letters), I personally think the argument looses strength a bit. Right now, I'm leaning either for [[Little girl (The Impossible Astronaut)]] (no capital letters), or [[Melody Pond's first incarnation]], to circumvent the dabbing issues. [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC) |
| ::: We shouldn't just ignore the Time Lady part, we need to add: human (with some Time Lord DNA) or similar. --[[User:Revanvolatrelundar|Revan]]\[[User_talk:Revanvolatrelundar|Talk]] 18:02, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| :::: But it isn't Time Lord DNA, it's vortex-altered Human DNA (hence the "Human Plus" term). [[User:Witoki|Witoki]] 18:05, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| :::: It was said in the episode that the DNA had Time Lord patterns in it. --[[User:Revanvolatrelundar|Revan]]\[[User_talk:Revanvolatrelundar|Talk]] 18:07, June 6, 2011 (UTC) | |
| ::::: Then it resembles Time Lord DNA, but that does not define it as actually being part Time Lord. Until we know for certain that she does carry the genetic traits of a Time Lord, we cannot suggest for sure that she is a Time Lady. We either need to see her regenerate (or confirm she was the Astronaut Girl) or have two hearts before we can make the claim, especially considering both her parents are human. [[User:Witoki|Witoki]] 18:17, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| :::::
| |
| ::::: Also, we don't know that she can complete a regeneration until we have some onscreen verification. We've all seen interrupted regenerations -- heck, there was one in the previous episode. Nonetheless, while we know that the little girl has the genetic capacity to release the energy associated with regeneration, we don't know, as yet if she can channel it into a regeneration. Mind you, I'm willing to take reasonable odds that it is regeneration we see occuring, but there's a difference between belief and knowledge. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] 16:15, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| == River's incarnations ==
| | :::::: Well not ''this'' is a coincidence if I ever saw one. Big Finish has recently released a webcast (''[[The Story of the Diary of River Song (webcast)|The Story of the Diary of River Song]]'') which recaps a lot of River's adventures and her timeline and, little do we know, they mention both of their previous incarnations. Aside from referring the River by her birth name of Melody Pond, River herself calls her second incarnation [[Mels Zucker]] (the full name), while her first incarnation is called (guess what) [[Little girl (The Impossible Astronaut)|little girl]]. |
| I'm probably jumping the gun on this one, since I don't think this is confirmed, only incinuated. But River can regenerate, in fact we saw her regenerate at the end of Day of the Moon (though some might argue that wasn't confirmed, I'd argue they are wrong so it doesn't matter). So, should we have separate pages for her different incarnations? Okay, we've only seen two to date, First and Last River, (first being baby River, and the child in the suit played by Sydney Wade; and last played by Alex Kingston) and it's probably not a big deal to have them under one page. I'm just curious, if one of her earlier incarnations makes a major appearance, are we going to create a page for Second-to-Last River?
| | :::::: Now, I'll not give any rulings, given I was the one to start the discussion, but this serves as a quite nice food for thought, and a bump in the talk page as well. [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| I'm just saying this because we have pages for each of the Doctor's incarnations, each of the Master's incarnations, each of Romana's incarnations. Why not for River's incarnations? But, like I said, I'm probably jumping the gun. I'm an impatiant man. - [[User:BlackWidower|BlackWidower]] 00:52, June 15, 2011 (UTC) | | ::: I now notice that a few days ago, [[User:SOTO]] standardised prequel naming via bot, so now we have [[Prequel to The Impossible Astronaut (webcast)]] instead of the clunky [[Prequel (The Impossible Astronaut]]. That means that we can now safely and unambiguously have the "First Melody" at [[Melody Pond (Prequel to The Impossible Astronaut)]], and more generally: |
| | * [[Melody Pond]] |
| | ** [[Melody Pond (Prequel to The Impossible Astronaut)]] |
| | ** [[Mels Zucker]] |
| | ** [[River Song]] |
| | ::: Is this approach agreeable for everyone? [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| It may be true, but Steven has fooled us before. Though if it is true (I'm betting it is. River has natural curly hair (obviously) so she must have regenerated. this may even explain how Jenny regenerated) we should make a new page for each regeneration. But the down to earth situation is we are a FACTUAL site. And as contributers, we need to provide those facts. and unfortunately, they are not facts untill aired or published. So please keep to information that has been approved by moffat himself - [[User:Landisnicholas|Landisnicholas]] 21:19, June 14 2011 (EST)
| | :::: I'm fine with that. [[User:LauraBatham|LauraBatham]] [[User talk:LauraBatham|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| == "And a last time" ==
| | ::::: Agreed. I think we can move forward with this. <span style="color: #baa3d6;font-family:Comic Sans;">[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']]</span> <span style="color: #baa3d6;">[[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]]</span> 10:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC) |
| | |
| My edit to soften the claim that River "would never kiss [the Doctor] again." after the events of Day of the Moon was undone without comment, so I'm posting it here for discussion. We know that River's adventures are generally so far in reverse order from the Doctor's, meaning he knows her less and less each time, so when he kisses her and reflects on their first kiss from his perspective ("First time for everything"), she says "And a last time."
| |
| | |
| It doesn't make sense to me to suggest that this statement means the character somehow knows that she will never kiss the Doctor again. In-universe, there is simply no way that she could know that. From the audience's perspective, we know at the very least that a future Doctor visits her just before the Library to say goodbye; no reason not to expect a kiss there.
| |
| | |
| I interpret the statement to be a general statement on her time with the Doctor slipping away as they progress through their generally "back to front" relationship. But we know it's not exactly back to front, so it doesn't make sense to say that this is the absolute last kiss. -[[User:BBCXI|BBCXI]] 00:10, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == From beginning to end. ==
| |
| | |
| Example: the Donna Noble page shows her original name to be as such and is later named Donna Temple-Noble.
| |
| | |
| | |
| So it would make sense for the character page to say "Melody Pond (later River Song)". And for River Song to be one of her aliases. So much more sense- making than leaving it as it is. ([[Special:Contributions/173.167.179.77|173.167.179.77]] 14:34, July 30, 2011 (UTC))
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| Very logical, and in many ways correct. However, until they start calling her "Melody" regularly on the show, it would perhaps be best to stick to 'River Song.' If we ever get to the stage where we have onscreen confirmation that she regenerates, we may wish to have separate articles for her various incarnations. However, we have had several Time Lords appear in different incarnations with just one article to cover all of them -- Borusa springs to mind. I think, in the end, it's a matter of convenience to have separate articles, lest they become too large. And then we can argue about whether she is Melody Pond or Meoldy Williams. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] 16:22, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| i'm pretty sure the new episode made it pretty clear that she can regenerate...[[User:DarkShadowSword|<font color="#000000" size="2px">'''Dark'''</font>]]|[[User talk:DarkShadowSword|<font color="#AF7817" size="2px">'''Shadow'''</font>]]|[http://www.youtube.com/user/megahypernova <font color="#000000" size="2px">'''Sword'''</font>] 07:06, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]], she's definitely Melody Pond. The Tesselecta refers to her as Melody Pond, and Melody Williams wouldn't translate to River Song.
| |
| | |
| ==The order River & The Doctor Meet==
| |
| River said that they are meeting in the reverse order.
| |
| We know the first time The Doctor meet her was the day she died.
| |
| Which, using River's statement would imply that the last time she will see him is the day she is born.
| |
| | |
| We just say that. So this should mean that River is gone. But she isn't. So I'm confused. [[User:Deb1701|Confused Fan]]
| |
| | |
| :I think "meeting in the wrong order" would be more precise, and I know the Doctor said that in "The Time of Angels". It seems to be somewhat reverse, but not ''completely''. Did River actually say "reverse" order in an episode? [[User:Glimmer721|Glimmer721]] 18:56, July 31, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Pictures ==
| |
| | |
| I think River may need a few more pictures on this page. Could someone please do that. Thanks [[Special:Contributions/78.105.95.95|78.105.95.95]] 13:12, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == different incarnations pages ==
| |
| | |
| Maybe we should give each of River's incarnations a seperate page? I even made a template (just to show you what it'll be like, delete it if its unnecessary) [[User:DuduDoctor|DuduDoctor]] 20:26, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| {{Rivers}}
| |
| | |
| Completely agree with you. I has been confirmed in Let's kill hitler that Rivers the astronaut/ girl in alley, So i think this should be made.
| |
| | |
| : Definitely. I think we should do it. [[User:Rassilon of Old|<font color="00B000">'''Rassilon of Old'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Rassilon of Old|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rassilon_of_Old|Contribs]])</sup> 04:30, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| I don't think this is necessary - in the case of the Doctor, we have many adventures with each incarnation, and know a lot about each one - however, with River, we predominantly see only her third incarnation, so we don't really have enough information (in my opinion) about her earlier incarnations to justify making separate pages for each.
| |
| [[User:Aliyoda|Aliyoda]] 13:16, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Just want to say... ==
| |
| | |
| Hey, I know the admins have to temporarily protect articles like these after big revalations/events, but an article about River's past incarnations (alike the doctor), should be added to this wiki. And also don't forget that 'The Girl' of america is now revealed to be River, because when Mels was regenerating, she said that the last time she regenerated she was in New York, alike 'The Girl.'
| |
| | |
| It should be advised that you instate this information where necessary (River Song article, as well as creating some new ones) ASAP. Thanks.
| |
| | |
| [[cascade11]] (Not logged in)
| |
| | |
| == Rivers ageing ==
| |
| | |
| In Lets Kill Hitler, River jokes that "I might take the age down a little bit, just gradually, to freak people out". The line is obviously leaning on the fourth wall about the fact that she is younger in Silence in the Library etc. but should it be added to the article? [[User:LoneWolf2056|LoneWolf2056]] 21:25, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| I don't think she looks much younger in SitL. A year or two difference at her age shouldn't really affect her on camera appearence. Remember, Time Lords age differently, and she just went through a regeneration. (Incidentally, the 10th Doctor went through a very difficult recovery following his regeneration, while 11D and RS apparently regen'd with little difficulty. What's up with that?) In addition, she used all her remaining regenration energy to save the Doctor after nearly killing him. She's gotta look older after that. -Jed [[Special:Contributions/108.127.179.246|108.127.179.246]] 14:21, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Second Melody may not be Mels ==
| |
| | |
| The First Melody (if it even ''was'' the first) that regenerated in New York did so in the 1960s. Unless Mels, as a ''very'' young child, found some manner of time travel, there would be at least one more regeneration there.
| |
| | |
| Namely, we've got
| |
| *Melody Pond
| |
| *(Possible other regenerations)
| |
| *Little Girl (possibly Melody #1)
| |
| *Toddler in 60s New York
| |
| *(Possible other regenerations)
| |
| *Mels
| |
| *River Song
| |
| | |
| '''<font color=#609000>d</font> [[User:Witoki|<font color=#609000>●</font>]][[User_talk:Witoki|<font color=#FF6090>●</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Witoki|<font color=#6090FF>●</font>]]''' 02:40, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Yeah, the evidence does seem to point towards Mels being (at least) Melody's third incarnation, River therefore being the fourth (and last). [[User:Adam 148|Adam 148]] 09:32, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| ::Time Lords don't seem to age as rapidly as humans, though, as recently seen in ''The Impossible Astronaut''; the future Doctor is 1103, yet looks just like his 900-year-old counterpart. Then again, Mels is seen aging just like Rory and Amy in ''Let's Kill Hitler''. {{User:D0ct0r11/sig}}
| |
| ::
| |
| ::Oh, let's see. First, that may be a matter of'' Gallifreyan'' Time Lords as opposed to ''Human-Plus'' Times Lords. We have seen Gallifreyan time lords get old and creaky between regenerations at a much slower rate and a Gallifreyan lifespan between regenerations may be a thousand years; when the Master used his Laser screwdriver on the Doctor we wound up in his 900s in that body. However, Melody is not a Gllifreyan and her lifespan between regenerations, barring accidents, may be a normal human half a century. Second, even if she had a 'Gallifreyan' lifespan, that says nothing about how long physical childhood lasts in a Time Lord. When we see a flashback of kids being taken to the Tempered Schism at age eight in.... was it "Last of the Time Lords"? they look to be eight. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] 12:32, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| :::Though it was shown in "Let's Kill Hitler" that Time Lords can choose how they age, with River deciding to become younger. Yes, it was tongue in cheek humor, but nevertheless, canon. Perhaps River/Melody simply suspended her aging process during her time in New York post-regeneration. {{User:Rassilon of Old/Sig}} 14:02, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| ::I have independently come to the same base conclusion as Witoki – that we have no evidence to support Girl = 1st; Mels = 2nd; River = 3rd. For one thing, the Little Girl was not regenerating for the first time – she gives the impression of having experience of regenerating... [[User:Danbarnesdavies|DBD]] 22:30, August 28, 2011 (UTC) | |
| | |
| You forget something, where did Mels come from, 1969 America. How did she get to Leadworth 1990s? She didn't age really properly. She must have travelled to Leadworth (probably found and adopted, although we have no proof of that), and aged really, really slowly. She looked about eight, in her last incarnation. She would have been 50 by now. But no, she's was in her early 20's. Perhaps because she was Human Plus Time Lord she aged a bit quicker, but only slightly. So there, worry over. [[User:BroadcastCorp|BroadcastCorp]] <small>([[User talk:BroadcastCorp|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/BroadcastCorp|contribs]])</small> 16:02, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| I'm guessing when a Time Lord regenerates that their next body is similar in size to that of it's predecessor - An Adult body won't regenerate into a baby size body (or vice versa)...unless of course she had more control over her regenerations. It must be hard though keeping count of a Time Lord's age (since River is the child of The TARDIS, I guess she doesn't have to count)
| |
| | |
| Seeing as the photos we see in [[The Impossible Astronaut]] are of the little girl and Amy, this to me implies that at some point Amy finds Melody, and raises her (at least for a few years) as she grows up to be the little girl. (Hence little girl = first). Ok, it's not certain, but pretty likely. She appears to know that she's able to regenerate ("I'm dying. But that's ok. I can fix that. It's easy."), but this could just be due to the fact that the Silence have told her something of her abilities.
| |
| What we DO know for certain is that Mels states that THE LAST TIME she regenerated, she ended up a toddler in the middle of New York. In other words, the toddler in New York is Mels. Since the little girl regenerated in an alley in New York, I'd say it was pretty certain that Mels was the regeneration immediately following the little girl.
| |
| So I'd amend the above list to:
| |
| *(Possible other regenerations)
| |
| *Little Girl (possibly Melody #1)
| |
| *Mels
| |
| *River Song
| |
| [[User:Aliyoda|Aliyoda]] 00:43, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| : Those photos in the orphanage were probably taken not long after Amy gave birth, as she seems a bit... bedraggled in them. On the topic of Melody aging, it makes sense that she'd age just like a human, considering she's not fully Time Lord. I'd have to agree with there being another incarnation between the Little Girl and Mels, unless Mels somehow found a way to be hidden in New York for twenty years or so, and stopped herself from aging. River can slowly de-age, so why couldn't Mels age ever so slightly? {{User:D0ct0r11/sig}}
| |
| :
| |
| : We've had no confirmation, so we shouldn't be saying that Mels, River, or the little girl are specific incarnations of Melody. They're ''an'' incarnation. We don't know which one. [[User:TemporalSpleen|TemporalSpleen]] 16:48, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Name Change ==
| |
| | |
| I propose a name change. River Song is the name she chose in her third incarnation, not her third and second. It should be renamed Melody, as this was her name throughout all her incarnations, including the first most likely, as she must have been known by this name, as we see a picture of her as a baby and her mother. We don't use the latest name they chose, as [[User:Revanvolatrelundar]] said. If that's true, will we rename the Master, "Harold Saxon"? Or "Master of All", as he said. Those are just aliases, and they were (most probably) only in one incarnation. So... I really think we ought to rename the page. [[User:BroadcastCorp|BroadcastCorp]] <small>([[User talk:BroadcastCorp|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/BroadcastCorp|contribs]])</small> 15:57, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| : While more episodes use "River", Melody is a better umbrella title that applies to all three incarnations (including to an extent the archaeologist one). -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 18:23, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Yes, but as with married characters, the latest name is the one that is used. Therefore, River Song should be the title of this article.--{{User:Skittles the hog/sig}} 18:33, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| In Let's kill Hitler the Doctor keeps calling her River, not Melody, thats her most used name, the one she is know for. [[User:Gridcube|Gridcube]] 18:46, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| I'd just like to give my opinion about the name dilema. I think it should stay as River Song due to that being the alias she chooses to go by (paradox much from the gamma forests?) - just like what The Doctor and The Master did. Also I like the name "River Song"! {{Unsigned|89.168.123.226}}
| |
| | |
| It doesn't matter if you like the name, that is irrevelant to the discussion. The name "Melody Pond" covers all her incarnations, all three, whilst the name "River Song" just refers to her third incarnation, as Tybort said. To refer to all the incarnations, the name "Melody Pond" is more suitable. This is confusing to readers as well. This is probably what they're thinking. [[User:BroadcastCorp|BroadcastCorp]] <small>([[User talk:BroadcastCorp|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/BroadcastCorp|contribs]])</small> 10:55, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| <blockquote>What? Why does it have the name River Song covering all her three incarnations? Why is there a page called Melody Pond (River Song). This is so confusing.</blockquote>
| |
| | |
| River Song is the name she uses for the majority of her adventures with the Doctor, so the page should stick with being called River Song. There are very few instances in which she gets called Melody Pond, just in her first two incarnations which we see very little of. Also, they are essentially the same name, just translated.
| |
| [[User:Aliyoda|Aliyoda]] 13:13, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| I would suggest you also look at [[Forum:River Song incarnations or full page?]], where it has been suggested that all the "incarnation articles" are rolled back into the single [[River Song]] page.--{{User:Skittles the hog/sig}} 13:17, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Category:Human etc.? ==
| |
| So, as Melody is human with a bit of Time Lord DNA, would it be inaccurate to place her under stuff like [[:Category:Human companions]] and [[:Category:Human archaeologists]]? -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 18:19, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| I think you should put it under Time Lady (or Time Lord) Companions due to it now being rare one will ever be added to it - Her background fits that catagory anyway
| |
| | |
| Oh, I have no issue adding her to Time Lord-related categories like Time Lord companions (which is probably too small to really implement as a category, but that's neither here nor there). I'm just wondering if it's the right idea to add her to human ones ''on top'' of that. -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 19:17, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| She's a human, but due to her being concieved in the TARDIS it was possible to splice in Time Lord DNA (which would be dominant). So she has regenerative abilities, and presumably similar powers of the Time Lords; resistance to many types of poisons, toxins and radiations that would be lethal to humans. Simalarly, she would have an innate ability to navigate the Time Vortex, due to her being a child of the TARDIS and the DNA splice (This by the way answers the question of how she can fly the TARDIS better than even the Doctor - the TARDIS taught her!). Genetically, she's Human Plus - the Time Lord stuff is a mutation or corruption. [[User:Jedman67|Jedman67]] 00:35, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Death of the Doctor ==
| |
| | |
| River kills the Doctor from a spacesuit in Lake Silencio, Utah, in 2012. This is a "defined" point in history, its immutable. Three questions then: Is Lake Silencio possibly a reference to the Silence; is the Doctor really 200 years older or did he just lie to Amy and Rory; and is Moffat really going to kill off the Doctor, or does he have something real smartass up his sleeve? (i.e. River kills a 'ganger' Doctor, or a clone of sorts? Seems kinda cheap to do it that way, IMO)
| |
| | |
| | |
| My speculation is that its real. There are two possible outcomes of killing off the Doctor: Kill him, and bring him back to life in such a way that it blows the audience out of the water. The second (unlikely) possibility is a reboot of the entire franchise. [[User:Jedman67|Jedman67]] 00:29, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Current infobox pic ==
| |
| | |
| I am reluctant to start yet another multiple-incarnation infobox pic discussion, but I think I gotta problem with showing the girl in the spacesuit as Melody. I'm not entirely sure we know that yet. I don't ''think'' we know, for certain, that the girl in the space suit is the girl who regenerates in New York.
| |
| | |
| There are a couple of reasons I'm hesitating:
| |
| | |
| #Adult River, when she's investigating the moon suit, seems to have no memory of being in it. She's going to town, doing a full-on CSI investigation of it. If she had been in the suit as the young Melody, we never see Alex Kingston recognise the suit in any way. And that strikes me as very odd.
| |
| #We still have the unexplained photograph of Amy and an adolescent (Caucasian) Melody to explain. Since we've not yet seen Amy and the New York alleyway kid — who is pictured with Amy — there is still room to doubt that the moon suit kid is Melody.
| |
| | |
| I guess what I'm saying is that I'd be more comfortable with a shot from the New York alleyway than the moon suit. ''[[Let's Kill Hitler]]'' gives us a defintive answer on who the regenerating girl is; it doesn't necessarily identify the girl in the space suit with the same degree of certainty. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">'''02:27:07 Mon '''29 Aug 2011 </span>
| |
| | |
| Except You see the girl right after she forces herself out and is hiding from the Doctor after Amy is captured. She is most certainly the girl in the alleyway. Weather or not it's River is still dodgy to me, since Mels explained she first regenerated as a toddler, but in New York. {{Unsigned|Cyrus Arc}}
| |
| | |
| We see the little girl regenerate in New York. Mels states that the last time she regenerated, she ended up a toddler in the middle of New York. They're obviously the same person.
| |
| [[User:Aliyoda|Aliyoda]] 13:09, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| :You're overanalyzing and splitting hairs here, Czech. TIA shows us that the girl in the spacesuit regenerated. LKH tells us that the regenerating girl was River. Little girl in spacesuit=little girl regenerating=River Song. As for River not recognizing the suit, consider: 1) She wouldn't remember much, because of the Silence aliens. River herself claimed that she didn't remember much of the time (Let's Kill Hitler). 2) River needed to keep her identity secret from the Doctor, so she pretended she had never seen the suit before. And 3) River lies. --[[User:Bold Clone|<span style="color:darkblue">'''Bold'''</span>]] [[User Talk:Bold Clone|<span style="color:gold">'''Clone'''</span>]] 20:45, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Incarnation time gap? ==
| |
| | |
| I think there's an issue with what we know of the timeline of River's various incarnations. We know that the little girl regenerated six months after the moon landing, i.e. early 1970. In Let's Kill Hitler, Mels said she regenerated into a toddler in New York. But Mels is roughly the same age as Amy, who was born in the mid eighties. So, there are about 15 years unaccounted for. I can see several options:
| |
| #This is a mistake by the writing team and the whole thing is a plot hole. (possible, but highly disappointing if true)
| |
| #The little girl is actually not River and the whole thing is a clever misdirection (possible though really unlikely in my opinion).
| |
| #There was an unknown incarnation (or more than one) - the girl turned into someone else, who stayed in New York then regenerated again in the mid-eighties into a toddler.
| |
| #Mels didn't age at the same rate as normal humans before meeting her parents in Leadworth.
| |
| #At some time before she got to Leadworth as a child, Mels time travelled 15 years forward.
| |
| | |
| | |
| I'd say 4 and 5 are the most likely, especially if you think that there was some intervention by the silence and/or Kovarian (which seems likely as well since she probably would have needed assistance to get to the UK as a little girl)
| |
| | |
| Thoughts, anyone?
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| '''[[Special:Contributions/78.105.193.5|78.105.193.5]] 08:32, August 29, 2011 (UTC)Eytan'''
| |
| | |
| I'd say it was most likely that Kovarian and/or the Silence brought her forward about 20 years to Leadworth, in order to let her befriend the known companions of the Doctor, thus increasing her chances of meeting him to kill him.
| |
| [[User:Aliyoda|Aliyoda]] 13:07, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| <p style="margin-left: 40px; ">Honestly, all of these are possible (except that it would have to be the early-90s for #3, not the mid-80s—Amy was born in 1989, which means she was a toddler around 1991-2).</p>
| |
| | |
| <p style="margin-left: 40px; ">And that means that we can't say that any of them are true, until we have some in-universe confirmation. It doesn't matter which one is most likely; none of them are verifiably true.</p>
| |
| | |
| <p style="margin-left: 40px; ">We also don't know that the little girl in the spacesuit was her first incarnation.</p>
| |
| | |
| <p style="margin-left: 40px; ">Also, she's never called "The Spacesuit", she's called "The Little Girl", both in the episodes and in the credits.</p>
| |
| | |
| <p style="margin-left: 40px; ">I'm going to edit the article to remove all of the speculation. --[[Special:Contributions/173.228.85.35|173.228.85.35]] 05:16, August 31, 2011 (UTC)</p>
| |
| | |
| == Tardis' "daughter" ==
| |
| | |
| As River "began" on the tardis, and the Tardis tells her that she is the child on the tardis isnt it more likely it is more a saying rather than an actual acknowlegement than as her as being its actual daughter? In Here comes the drums the doctor refers to Children of gallifrey would it not just be refering just to itself as her birthplace?
| |
| | |
| :Since Melody was "conceived" on the TARDIS while inside the Time Vortex, she has Time Lord DNA. Which makes her a a "Child of the TARDIS". -- [[User:Deb1701|Loyal Companion]]
| |
| :
| |
| ::I disagree with the original poster here—in fact, I think the TARDIS probably had some active role in her specialness, and the fact that she seems to have an even stronger telepathic link with the TARDIS that the Doctor has to be explained ''somehow''. However, that's really more speculation on my part than anything we can know for sure based on what we've heard, so we can't anything too definitive about what River or the TARDIS really meant by "Child of the TARDIS" in the article. --[[Special:Contributions/173.228.85.35|173.228.85.35]] 05:58, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Silence in America Section ==
| |
| | |
| The following appears on the main page "From his shocked reaction, she realised that from his perspective, it was their first kiss, and from her perspective she believed it to be their last ([[DW]]: ''[[Day of the Moon]]''), although this may not be true as an older Doctor must still meet with River before she goes to the library"
| |
| | |
| Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think River and Doctor 10 kiss at library. -- [[User:Deb1701|Future Companion]]
| |
| | |
| :See under the Darillium section - a future doctor visits her before the library, giving her an upgraded version of his sonic screwdriver, so it's quite possible they kiss then. --[[User:Aliyoda|Aliyoda]] 10:42, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::The 10th Doctor only met River once. -- [[User:Deb1701|Future Companion]]
| |
| | |
| ::: Yes, this is a future doctor that will meet her just before the library, perhaps the 12th for example.
| |
| :::[[User:Aliyoda|Aliyoda]] 07:57, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Imprisonment Section ==
| |
| | |
| It has been stated that the man she kills is the Doctor. Why does this keep changing? -- [[User:Deb1701|TARDIS 50]]
| |
| | |
| == Chronological order of appearances ==
| |
| | |
| Since the entire biography above is in chronological order, and this section contains long paragraphs on most of her appearances, it's effectively just a summary of the preceding section, and doesn't seem at all necessary.
| |
| | |
| | |
| I think if this were stripped down to the bare essentials, the list might be useful—possibly alongside a list of appearances in the order of the Doctor's timeline, for comparison. --[[Special:Contributions/173.228.85.35|173.228.85.35]] 05:24, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| My reasoning behind putting it in there is that the biography is long and unwieldy, and if all you want to do is find out River's timeline then sifting through it to find the nuggets of fact is fairly tedious. I figured that the info was suitably pared down to contextualise River's movements from episode to episode, but will edit down a bit more and reinstate (TBH, I'd much rather people either discuss or just edit entries rather than deleting them outright, but hey ho). --[[User:Mister Six|Mister Six]] 13:15, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| We had a policy a while back of removing Key Life Events sections because it just copied exactly what the biography section said, this is no different. If you find the biography section long and unweildy then look at the contents list at the top of the page, it lists all the headings/stories in the order in which River experienced them. --[[User:Revanvolatrelundar|Revan]]\[[User_talk:Revanvolatrelundar|Talk]] 13:17, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| <p style="margin-left: 40px; ">I just wnt to point out that I wasn't the one who deleted it. I'm just guessing here, but maybe someone else had been thinking of deleting it, saw my post with no replies to it, and decided that was enough for consensus in this case, since it goes along with a policy. I personally would have waited more than 7 hours for additional comments, or posted something like Revan's comment to justify removing it without consensus, but ultimately I think it was the right move.</p>
| |
| | |
| <p style="margin-left: 40px; ">Meanwhile, I still think it's possible that River is a special case, and showing her timeline in both orders might actually be useful. But I won't add that if there's no support for it. --[[Special:Contributions/173.228.85.35|173.228.85.35]] 05:48, September 1, 2011 (UTC)</p>
| |
| | |
| == Speculation removed ==
| |
| | |
| Some of this has already been dealt with above (Second Melody May Not Be Mels and Incarnation Time Gap). In each case, everyone agrees that we don't know the facts, and yet the article still included the speculation, so I removed it all.
| |
| *We don't know that the little girl is River's first incarnation. We have no idea what happened between disappearing from Demons Run in the 52nd century and being a little girl in American in the late 60s; she might have been taken directly to the early 60s and grown up from there, but that's just a guess, with no confirmation.
| |
| *We don't know that Mels is her next incarnation after the Little Girl. Maybe she time-traveled from 1970 to 1991, or went into stasis, or stayed as a toddler for 21 years, or lived normally and then somehow lowered her age by 21 years, but maybe she lived for 21 years and then regenerated into a toddler in 1991. For all we know, she may have even regenerated again at some point during that 21 years, or traveled the universe for centuries using up multiple bodies (which she'd have to be if the Patience speculation is true—by the way, I'm assuming that one's fine because it's in the "Behind the Scenes" section). It doesn't matter which of these is most likely; all that matters is that we don't have any confirmation for any of them. All we can say is that Mels can't be any later than her 11th incarnation (because River has to have regenerations left over to use up for the Doctor).
| |
| *"Spacesuit Melody" is a fan name for her; the character is only called "The Little Girl", both in-universe and in the credits.
| |
| *We can't say, about who she killed, that "Conjecture is that this man is the Doctor." We haven't heard anyone conjecture that in-universe. Besides, the rest of that paragraph already gives the basis behind that conjecture (the screen showing that she's a murdered, followed by the Doctor's death date), which makes the implication at least as obvious as it is on-screen (and we don't really want to be any more obvious).
| |
| While I was in there, I also cleaned up a bunch of minor things—removing redundant sentences, fixing grammar, etc. But those are the only four speculations I removed. --[[Special:Contributions/173.228.85.35|173.228.85.35]] 05:38, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| : Sorry, but we do know that Mels is the incarnation immediately following the little girl. She explicitly states in Let's Kill Hitler that last time she regenerated she ended up a toddler in the middle of New York. The Little Girl regenerated in New York. Yes, ok, Steven Moffat hasn't shown us the end of that regeneration, but he expects us to use our brains - it's obvious what happened. We don't have 100% in-universe proof that the 11th Doctor wasn't abducted by the Daleks in Day of the Moon and replaced by a robot replica, but we don't edit pages to reflect this, we use our common sense.
| |
| : [[User:Aliyoda|Aliyoda]] 08:02, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| ::
| |
| :: Multiple people agree that we don't know. Everyone knows that she said she last regenerated into a toddler in the middle of New York. Everyone also knows that the little girl's regeneration was in 1970, which is 21 years too early. There's a gap that has to be explained either way. Nobody's saying that you theory is impossible, or even unlikely, just that it's not the only possible one, and therefore it's speculation to assert it as the truth.
| |
| ::
| |
| :: It seems like most of the people who stated an opinion in the two threads above agreed that we don't actually know. Just because you disagree with that opinion doesn't mean you can ignore everyone else. If we want to put something in the article that isn't verifiable truth, we need a consensus that it's obvious, not just one person who believes it can't be any other way. --[[Special:Contributions/173.228.85.35|173.228.85.35]] 05:32, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Accommodation of first regeneration ==
| |
| | |
| Please desist from removing the comment about it being unknown where or who she lived with when she was Mels. Wouldn't Amy and Rory find it a bit odd never meeting Mels' supposed parents. I understand that speculation about her living with adoptive parents is not allowed, however the readers have to know that we can see there is an irregularity, but we don't know the answer, however we are AWARE.
| |
| | |
| | |
| Thank you.
| |
