Talk:The Wedding of River Song (TV story)

Keep calm and stay focused.

Please abide by our discussion policy and be nice to other editors in this discussion. Remember: this talk page is only for discussing the editing of the attached article. Take speculation to The Howling, our general discussion forum. Messages not having to do with the improvement of the article may be deleted.

OK to create?

Granted there won't be much of an infobox, but seeing as the BBC already has the preview up and that it's here already shouldn't the episode page be up as well? Or are we just waiting for 1) the actual showing or 2) an admin to create it?– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.235.235.5 (talk • contribs) .

Well, generally the page is created on the day of broadcast as there really isn't a need for it to exist except as a skeleton, ready to have some meat chucked on it. However, nothing seems set in stone and, as you can see, the page has been created.--Skittles the hog - talk 13:10, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

I vaguely recall during the first part of this season the pages being posted as a skeleton with the BBC synopsis and any Cited Rumors, but I saw that those now fall under Spoilers 167.142.212.235 20:42, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Just to amplify Skittles' point, there is, under our current policies, zero need to create a story page prior to first broadcast. While The Wedding of River Song was briefly created, it was swiftly deleted. So long as we have a policy whereby story names can be un-disambiguated unless a DWU topic of the same name exists, we'll have to wait to see each episode to verify whether the episode title names a thing in the DWU. For instance, no one knew that The Pandorica Opens was actually a painting, until that episode was aired. Because we had the story page already created at The Pandorica Opens, we had to move it to The Pandorica Opens (TV story), in order to allow The Pandorica Opens to be the place for the painting.

If we had a more sensible disambiguation policy, which simply said that all story names had to be disambiguated by media type, this wouldn't be an issue, and we could create story pages much earlier. In other words, we could force TV story pages to be created as Episode (TV story), but allow redirects of the format Episode (so long as Episode wasn't a topic in the DWU). If we did this, story titles would be predictable, instead of the current hodgepodge. Under the current policy, some are like Castrovalva (TV story) and some are like An Unearthly Child.

It's no exaggeration to say that you need a scorecard to remember how the story pages are titled. Now, you might not think so if you only consider television. Long term editors, at least, tend to have memorised which TV story titles are disambiguated and which aren't. I don't think it makes too much immediate sense to newer editors, but people still have a pretty good chance of having seen the episodes in question. The situation is much worse with other media, however. I'm constantly finding articles which need to be disambiguated because the people who started the article hadn't actually read or heard the story, so they had no idea that — to take an example from yesterday's bot work — Red is a thing in the DWU, which is the focus of Red (audio story).

When you look at the entirety of the story titling chore on this wiki, the need for automatic disambiguation is much more profound. And it needn't change the way we write articles. People think that if we go to an all-disambiguated format that we're going to increase the number of keystrokes necessary to refer to a story. But that absolutely needn't be so. For instance, we'd formally change the name of An Unearthly Child to An Unearthly Child (TV story). But you'd still be able to link to An Unearthly Child, because the act of moving would leave a redirect behind. This proposed system would in fact be no different to the current system, except in terms of what appeared on top of story pages.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">15:19: Sat 01 Oct 2011 

By the way, if you're frustrated by how we've handled this page's creation, and would like to change how we handle all this, please go to Forum:Story names should be automatically disambiguated and vote to change the disambiguation policy.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">16:18: Sat 01 Oct 2011 

Lock page please

Could whoever has the power please lock this page for only registered users to edit, as someone keeps vandalising it. Howling Snail ^{talk to me} 20:12, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Somebody is messing around with The Wedding Of River Song page, putting crape nothing to do with the page, eveeytime i try to remove it, it put more rubbish on it.

Los Angeles?

This is categorised as a "story set in Los Angeles". Is this an error, or a really brief bit that's easy to miss? -- Tybort (talk page) 22:02, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

The live chess scene is apparently set in Los Angeles, got a source. [1], scroll down and read through the teasers, and you will find one that says "The Chess Pits of Vegas". I premused this meant Las Vegas. Either, it is or it's not. I may have clicked and type something in by mistake, but I just assumed by reading "Vegas" it was set there... and I just realised Las Vegas is not in Los Angeles... my bad. MM/Want to talk? 22:08, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Or "Vegas" is the name of a planet in some far-flung corner of the universe. Raven's wing ^{talk to me} 22:09, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Parallels

Is it worth including the parallel of Amy's actions with Kovarian and River's with the Dalek from The Big Bang?

- Byfield ^{talk to me} 01:28, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

I think that if these are worth mentioned, they should be in either story notes or continuity. Story notes to my taste. Boblipton ^{talk to me} 03:52, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Definitely worth mentioning, especially given Amy's line about River not getting all of her personality from Kovarian. Also, that both episodes ended in weddings should be mentioned; this probably goes back to literary theory about ancient comedy (at least New Comedy, if not necessarily Attic Old Comedy) and Shakespearean comedy, which very frequently ended with a wedding. Also, Kovarian is tied up, seated, in Area 52 in front of a "DO NOT INTERACT WITH THE PRISONER" sign like the Doctor was in Area 51 during Day of the Moon. 98.180.51.124 18:04, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Timeline placement

Someone put that this story, for the Doctor, takes place before Death is the Only Answer. I think it's a bit silly to use the mini-episode -which may not even be canon - as a benchmark. There is nothing in DITOA to suggest it takes place after this episode; it could take place during the 200 year gap. For all we know the Christmas special may take place immediately following. I suggest it be removed and either TBA or "2011 Christmas Special" be used instead. 68.146.80.110 04:47, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed, and replaced with TBA or something similar. Nothing in DITOA indicates the time setting. Haigh21 ^{talk to me} 10:45, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was placed after The Big Bang because he remarks about River blowing up the TARDIS and the fez thing. Gryffindor1991 14:27, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

DITOA has to take place after The Big Bang, as Gryffindor1991 stated. Therefore, it could happen between ACC and TIA, during the Doctor's two-hundred-years of running from his death, or after Wedding. The latter two seem the likliest. I guess we'll have to wait for something official on the subject. D0ct0r11 • 18:46 Wed 10 Oct 2011

The Brigadier

Why does this page say that the Brigadier died in the 2050s? I know that technically nothing in the episode contradicts the novels that say that he lived to the 2050s, but the implication in the episode really seems to be that the nurse the Doctor was talking to was in 2011, and the Brigadier had died around the same time that Nicholas Courtney died in real life. Why don't we just treat this the way we treat other characters whose fates are contradicted in different media, and mention that there are different versions of the Brigadier's fate, and assume that there are alternate timelines or something like that. Icecreamdif ^{talk to me} 18:22, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

That's what I got as well. I mean he if died in the 2050's, why can't the Doctor see him in 2011? I was thinking he was inviting him to Utah. -- Confused again

The Doctor sent the letters in the scene before that one though, I think the reason was meant to be that the Doctor wanted to talk to his oldest friend before he died. --Revan\Talk 18:28, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't his "oldest" friend be The Face of Boe? Loyal Companion

Not oldest as in how old they are, but oldest in how long they have been the Doctor's friend. The Doctor wanted to hang out with the Brigadier for the same reason that he went to say hi to Craig in Closing Time. Of course, even if the Brigadier died in 2011 you would think that the Doctor could go back to the 90s or something to hang out with him, but he usually tries to meet people in linear order (River being the obvious exception). I think that we should either say that the Brigadier died in 2011, or say that the episode left the date of his death ambiguous and just not give a date.Icecreamdif ^{talk to me} 20:35, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

The novel The King of Terror states he died in the 2050s. MM/Want to talk? 20:41, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Who else has saw the time travel switcheroo coming. I personally had some theories since the Tesselecta was shown way back.Godmode1911 ^{talk to me} 22:11, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that, but the episode really seems to imply that he dies in 2011. It makes the most sense-we see him as an old man in 2009, the actor who plays him dies in 2011, and the Doctor hears he dies in 2011. I'm not suggesting that we remove any reference in this wiki to the Brig dieing in the 50s-I'm just saying that on this page we should either say "Nursing Home-2011," or even "Nursing Home-21st Century." If we say 21st century than it works for either death date anyway. Icecreamdif ^{talk to me} 22:31, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's the TARDIS who sets the time the call is put through to the Brig and she does take the Doctor where he needs to go. And when. If she says he needs to speak with Lethridge-Stuart in the 2050s, then thats her way of telling the Doctor it's time to go. Boblipton ^{talk to me} 23:45, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Well, by that logic he could have decided give Craig a call, and find out that he died in the 2050s. Yes, the Doctor is a time traveller, but for whatever reason he generally considers the real world present to be the present. The whole scene has a greater emotional impact if the Doctor hears, "The Brigadier is dead now," than if he hears "The Brigadier will be dead in 40 years."Icecreamdif ^{talk to me} 03:49, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

I think putting it as "21st century" seems a better approach. MM/Want to talk? 10:32, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Links?

Hey, guys, just because I wouldn't let any of you touch the plot until I had finished setting it up doesn't mean that it doesn't still need links. Would someone who knows how to install them place the links to the articles covering the numerous topics I deliberately put in? Boblipton ^{talk to me} 01:16, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Stetson

Is it worth mentioning that the Doctor actually still owns the stetson? We know that it was the Tesselecta impersonating him from the moment he met up with Rory and Amy in Utah until his funeral pyre. That means that when River shoots his hat off, she's actually shooting the Tesselecta. The Doctor is shown brandishing the stetson from within the Tesselecta when he reveals the secret to River, so he still owns the hat.