Forum:River Song incarnations or full page?

Index → Panopticon → River Song incarnations or full page?

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

Theres been some talk between myself and Rassilon of Old whether we should have seperate incarnation pages for River Song or whether we should keep all the incarnations on one page. My personal opinion is that we should keep everything on one page, this is for several reasons.

1. Other individuals, such as the Doctor, Romana etc should have incarnation pages as they have had several appearances in each incarnation.
2. The names for each individual River/Melody incarnation are hard to decide upon (see talk pages of the incarnations for details)
3. The information on River can easily be covered in one article as we already have her birth and most of the details leading up to and including her death.

Anyway what are everyone else's opinions on the matter?

Discussion

I'm fairly easy either way. It seems to me that separate pages for different incarnations are a matter of convenience rather than some rigid rule. Because each of the pre-River incarnations seem unlikely to be more than one-shots, the advantages of keeping the biography in one place is obvious. I would say it wouldn't be until the supportin sections (primarily the 'Personality' section) for each got ungainly that breaking it up would be warranted. In the meantime, it could be handled as separate paragraphs qualified by which incarnation. So I guess I am on the side of keeping the whole thing on one page. On the other hand, if people really want to create the extra pages, I can work with that. Boblipton 16:55, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would be in favour of a single page. There's is no real advantage to having three pages, at least not at the moment.--Skittles the hog - talk 16:59, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Well, you also have to figure that the Doctor has a single page itself AND incarnation pages. And if you think about it, it would actually ease up the continuity flow for the show. If you're wanting to know about the River in the Spacesuit, you'd have to look through all of the article to find different bits of info, but with the incarnation pages, all the info is right there. TheTARDIScontroller 17:06, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if you take Rassilon for example, the article works fine as a single page. All the information is still there, and it doesn't exactly take long to find what your looking for.--Skittles the hog - talk 17:20, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

I personally think I would prefer one page, since neither of the other incarnations are particularly large in article length, so would be easily integrated to River's page, however I wouldn't object to three different pages. And also on that note, should we not discuss the naming of the pages? Because right now the River Song incarnation is "Melody Pond (River Song)", but I think it should be simply "River Song". Just like Amy's is titled "Amy Pond" instead of "Amelia Pond" because that's what she is known as most. River is most known as River, even if her birth name is Melody Pond.

So, if it is to be three pages they should be named after their most known name. The little girl should simply be Melody Pond, Mels should be Mels and River Song should be River Song, as that's what they're all called, not Melody Pond (Spacesuit)/(Mels)/(River Song) which looks rather messy as the page title. If it's one page, then I suggest simply River Song, as that's the name she has been known by most with Melody Pond and Mels being redirects. --The Thirteenth Doctor 18:24, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely should be one page. I support user:The Thirteenth Doctor's redirection scheme. I'm more strongly negative on the multi-page idea than anyone else in the discussion, however. I actually am fussed that there are multiple pages. The character is River Song, period, just like Borusa is only Borusa. Before anyone brings up the Master, I'm opposed to that whole thing existing as multiple pages, too, and always have been. So the current existence of multiple Master articles isn't a positive precedent for there being multiple River articles. I do think we can say, however, that there should be a Melody Pond (Ganger) page, however, as that is a unique entity.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">18:30:34 Sun 28 Aug 2011 

Finally! I agree completely on this front and that of the Master. I also agree with User:The Thirteenth Doctor that the page should be "River Song", not "Melody Pond", but the redirects would be necessary.--Skittles the hog - talk 18:36, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

I agree that one article is enough for the character, because the other two can never be more than stubs (unless we learn a lot more). Also, we don't actually know that baby Melody became the little girl in TIA; she could have regenerated one or more times before that. So, we'd need to make that into separate, even smaller stubs (who wants to write the "Personality" section for the baby?).

I also agree that the one article should be called River Song, for all the reasons given above.

If we do have separate articles, the little girl would have to be just called Little Girl, as she was before the reveal that it was Melody Pond. That's the only name anyone ever used for her in-universe and in the credits, while the baby, Mels, and River have all been referred to as Melody Pond in-universe, so, if anything, she's the _least_ deserving of having an article called "Melody Pond", not the most. And the naming problem is yet another argument for keeping it all in one article—obviously not conclusive in itself, but it does add a little weight. --173.228.85.35 21:59, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

"Baby Melody Pond was a cranky, self-centered infant who cried freely to express herself and was continually frustrated by people's stupidity and inability to understand her simplest thoughts. No one told her their names, leaving her to call her mother "Big Milk Thing" until the Doctor came along and spoke with her. However, even her relationship with him was blighted by his unwillingness to turn off things in the TARDIS, citing the feeble excuse that such an action might punch a hole in the universe. She suffered from feelings of abandonment and disliked Madame Kovarian's scientists messing with her DNA."Boblipton 22:09, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I want that page to exist. :) --173.228.85.35 16:36, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Decision

Have we reached a decision then, the general consensus is to keep everything on one page. Is this ok with everyone else? --Revan\Talk 21:14, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

One page sounds good to me, as long as the first incarnation is known as "Little Girl" rather than the stupid title of "spacesuit". Tardis1963 21:23, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

We should have a page for each incarnataion like we do for every Time Lord and Lady on this Wiki because, as Nessa would say, "It's Tidy". User:Doctorpenguin 21:40, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

Well nobody seems to be disagreeing. The River Song page already exists. But right now so do Melody Pond (Mels), Melody Pond (River Song), and Melody Pond (spacesuit), so they'll need either deleting or merging. Though the River Song page seems to already have most of the information on it. --The Thirteenth Doctor 21:45, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

Merge it all to River Song. Tardis1963 03:25, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

I checked over each incarnation page and found that all the information in them had been copied word for word onto the main River Song page anyway. The incarnation pages have now been deleted and there remains just the River Song article. --Revan\Talk 13:01, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'm against all of this. We should have them all on seperate pages. It's needed. Like the Doctor and the Master. Why don't you want them on seperate pages? BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 14:50, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

Try reading the discussion here. Boblipton 14:52, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

Since this heading is here, I'd like to utilize it. I completely and strongly disagree with this decision, and I'd like to appeal it. The article is quite a long page for an average article, and it needs to be split up. The seperate articles look far neater then having all of the information crammed into one article. Melody Pond is a major character in the revised series of Doctor Who, having been a reccuring character for four years on Doctor Who, I belive that she is important enough to warrant an article for each of her regenerations. Each incarnation has more than enough information to become an entire article, and cramming it all into River Song is not the right way to handle this.

I had been working on Melody Pond (Mels) before it was deleted, and I have to say it was of a decent length, with more information to be added. I also noticed, that none of the information from Melody Pond (Mels) was copied to River Song. Why is this? I know for a fact that information was not copied, because it is information I wrote myself.

River Song is in need of expansion, and it is hard to do this when the article is already quite long. The article is becoming messy, and it just looks unnatractive. All three incanations of Melody Pond should have their own articles on the wiki, as well as a 'home page', if you will, for a brief overview of the entire character's history. Rassilon of Old ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 09:08, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

However it is not an average article. Whilst for the Doctor and Master it is acceptable to split them, since each incarnation had many adventures, and those articles are, in themselves, rather long, and to have them on one article would make it enormous. With River, however, with the information we have on her, her article is only as long as the Doctor's complete summarised page.

Yes, each incarnation has enough information to be it's own article, but if we did have them as separate articles, then there would be problems with this, largely the naming. You want a home page for Melody, which I'd presume you would want to name Melody Pond. So what about each incarnation? Do we name them Melody Pond (Spacesuit/Little Girl), Melody Pond (Mels) and Melody Pond (River Song)? Because she's generally known as River Song, so surely the character should be known as that? Otherwise Amy Pond should be Amelia Pond. And adding in the brackets to disambiguate the names is much more messy than the River Song page looks.

And with your suggestion of an article for each incarnation plus a home page, what would be on the home page? Because really the only incarnation that would actually be summarised is the River Song incarnation. Because the other two incarnations aren't so long that they would require summarising.

It's much simpler to have them on the one page. The only reason we would split them is if the first two incarnations were much longer than they are now, and that happening is very doubtful. --The Thirteenth Doctor 12:07, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand the naming to be an issue, especially with River/Melody, seeing as she is primarily known as River Song. But I think the method we had used in the last few days worked quite well, with the articles being named Melody Pond (Little Girl), Melody Pond (Mels) and Melody Pond (River Song). I actually also agree that Amy Pond should be named Amelia Pond, as it's her actual name, Amy is just something she shortened it to to spite the Doctor and how he thought it to be "like out of a fairy tale". Just like Jackie Tyler should be Jacqueline Tyler.

I also see your interpretation of the "home page's" summaries consisting of River's adventures only, however this is not neccesarily true. Although, yes, River has had more adventures with the Doctor than her previous incarnation (and it will most definitely remain that way), her adventures could be summarized into about three to four paragraphs, with her previous incarnations' sections having about two paragraphs each. And the 'home page' serves the same purpose as The Doctor article does, it's a summary of the Doctor's life, with links to more indepth descriptions of his history and various personalities.

And as an address to your third and final paragraph, about the expansion of the previous two incarnations, that isn't too unlikely, as I had expanded Melody Pond (Mels) when it was an article, and it was of a very good sizable length, and it wasn't just me repeating myself, it was an in-depth look at Mels' life. And as another point, I know it isn't exactly reliable, and it's a bit spoilery, nor is it a point to change anyone's opinion, but it has been confirmed that Mels is to appear in "The Wedding of River Song", and so I'm sure we will learn more information there.

I'm still very adament about this, as you can probably tell, and I truely believe that this action should be revoked. Rassilon of Old ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 12:34, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Err...Rassilon of Old...did you see the big "Spoilers aren't cool here." Up the top of this and all discussions in the Forum namespace? Please edit your post to comply with it, thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:38, September 1, 2011 (UTC)