Talk:Statue of Liberty
Category[[edit source]]
I'm possibly way over thinking this one, but somehow one of the categories for this page is really not sitting well with me. The article is currently categorized, in part, under Category:New York City locations. Daleks in Manhattan doesn't actually say this, and, of course, in real life that's a very contentious issue. (See wikipedia:Liberty Island#Jurisdictional disputes for more.) In a very technical sense, all we see is that they are at the Statue of Liberty, which is actually federal land; only Liberty Island can be argued a part of NYC. Since categories are themselves in-universe assertions, can we actually say it's a NYC location? I mean the Doctor and Martha are looking out across the Harbor towards Manhattan when they speak of "New York City". Neither alleges they are in NYC simply by virtue of being at the Statue of Liberty. I mean, I know that the statue is iconic of NYC and all, but it's not at all clearly in NYC, and the episode doesn't establish a DWU position on the matter. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 00:26, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
- As a New Yorker I'm quite familiar with the issue. Technically, since this article is about the statue itself and not Liberty Island, I would be fine without classifying it as a location at all, but given the general public's perception of the statue as an NYC thing I figured if I didn't add the category, someone else would. I just addressed this by moving it from the "New York City locations" cat to the "New York City" one; regardless of location, the statue is iconic to New York City both in-universe and out (In Cold Fusion, the Doctor responds to Tegan's admission that she's never seen the Statue with "what, never been to New York on a stopover?") so it fits there either way.
- I wonder if the block of italics which rivals the article itself for length could go. Would it be better to to just steer the article away from the issue entirely? The geographic-only explanation of its location you put in the opening sentence is really the best way to handle it, without taking this wiki off-scope. Rob T Firefly 06:45, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I initially took your advice and removed the italicized bit entirely. But then I thought about that first sentence and it's actually not established in the DWU, through explicit dialogue, that the statue is on a river. Strong's camera angles and the script can give people not familiar with NYC the impression that it's floating out there in the ocean somewhere. So I pared back the language and reinserted an abbreviated version just to support the lead's assertion that it is indeed on a river. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 17:31, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
- That works! Thanks. Rob T Firefly 22:35, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I initially took your advice and removed the italicized bit entirely. But then I thought about that first sentence and it's actually not established in the DWU, through explicit dialogue, that the statue is on a river. Strong's camera angles and the script can give people not familiar with NYC the impression that it's floating out there in the ocean somewhere. So I pared back the language and reinserted an abbreviated version just to support the lead's assertion that it is indeed on a river. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 17:31, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so...[[edit source]]
Can someone add a little more detail to the "Statue of Liberty is a Weeping Angel" info. Because I don't think it was a true Weeping Angel, I believe the Angels have the power to turn normal statues into lesser Weeping Angels, which makes sense with the end of "Blink" which strongly hinted that "Any statue could be a weeping Angel"
1- The Paradox caused all the Angels to disappear, which means the Statue would disappear as well, or if my theory is correct all that would do is reverse the Angel's powers on it turning it back to a normal statue.
2- It doesn't have wings, or the default appearance. Proving it's not a true weeping angel.
3- I don't think it's as powerful (Or more powerful?) as regular Weeping Angels, because it traveled throughout New York without any trouble. I mean, think about it. If the statue was walking through downtown New York, (If Ghostbusters 2 taught me anything) people would be constantly staring at it non-stop meaning it would have never gotten to the hotel at all.
Moogleknight24 ☎ 05:24, September 30, 2012 (UTC)Moogleknight24
- I've only watched The Angels Take Manhattan about four or five times, but I don't remember the Doctor mentioning that some of the Weeping Angels in Manhattan were transformed from ordinary statues. (And I don't mean to be an egomaniac when I say this, but I do have quite a good memory when it comes to TV.) TroopDude ☎ 16:23, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
- At some point, River Songs says something along the lines of "They've turned all of the statues in New York into angels..." OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 16:37, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
- The quote is "It's like they've taken over every statue in the city." --SnorlaxMonster ☎ 16:56, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
- At some point, River Songs says something along the lines of "They've turned all of the statues in New York into angels..." OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 16:37, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
- I've only watched The Angels Take Manhattan about four or five times, but I don't remember the Doctor mentioning that some of the Weeping Angels in Manhattan were transformed from ordinary statues. (And I don't mean to be an egomaniac when I say this, but I do have quite a good memory when it comes to TV.) TroopDude ☎ 16:23, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
I vote we move the info about the weeping angel statue to the "Alternate timeline" section. It's made very clear that after Rory and Amy kill themselves that the place "never existed anymore," so I vote that we remove place it in the alternate section. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 20:55, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
