Talk:The Angels Take Manhattan

Zac Fox

Unless I imagined it, I'm sure Zac Fox was retrospectively credited for his role as "Photoshoot PA" in "Asylum of the Daleks" in the credits to this episode. Truly bizarre - worth mentioning.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Just looked up the credits on iPlayer all it says is "PHOTOSHOOT PA ZAC FOX" nothing to suggest it wasn't for this episode. Narom (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, as far as I recall, no such character actually appeared in this episode, whereas our article on "Asylum" says that Zac Fox was in it as just such a character but was not credited....-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point. They probably should have clarified it a bit better instead of sticking it in like that. Seem's it surprised him. https://twitter.com/bg_evl/status/252121914913464320 Narom (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary New York in the future

Perhaps worth noting that the newspaper Amy Pond is reading has the headline "Detroit Lions win Super Bowl" - yet Detroit have never even reached the big game. Perhaps noting that this means the "modern day" New York in which they're having their picnic etc is set in either the future or some alternate universe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftr2k7 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:synthesis and WP:original research. DonQuixote (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

fair enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.87.179.62 (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The return

I hate to nitpick - so, apologies, but here goes. In the lead, it currently says "The story [...] features the return of the Weeping Angels." This reads slightly oddly to me, because of a (perhaps wrong?) feeling that there can really only be one "THE return" and we've already had that with the bl**dy scary crashed spaceship with a whole mob of them dashing around it like manic hamsters in a potato cupboard. This is A return, yes, but that's a weak expression compared with THE return, and I don't think, being a non-unique return, that it can be a simple "the". And "the second return" or something would, I fear, be intolerably clunky. (Do you see at all what I mean here, are am I just waffling meaninglessly on per usual? I could stfu, go out for a coffee, or maybe both! Yes.) So I wonder if, in the interests of accuracy and of not confusing the aged, it might be better reworded slightly to avoid the THE problem - maybe something like "The story [...] features the third appearance of the Weeping Angels" only better-written? What d'you think?? Thanks and best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean, 'The' is the definate article and this is not the only return so far and, as Moffat's signature alien, unlikely to be the last. I've found other examples of this, The Return of the Pink Panther is a good one, but that doesn't mean that it should be concidered acceptable use of the english language. How about just saying it "features the Weeping Angels." and leave it at that? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that Pete. I've boldly changed it to "third appearance". Now wait for the massive edit war, drama, SPI, AIV, death threats etc. Mind you as long as those things stay out of my front garden I will be fine. DBaK (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, late to the party but "the return" was perfectly fine and did not imply that it was their only return. On the other hand, you're right, people are already nit-picking the number. Of course it depends if you count Time of Angels and Flesh and Stone as one story or two episodes... Mezigue (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks very much for that - for the record, I see it backwards from you - I think it was really not OK saying "the return". It's obviously not possible for us to agree on what it implied, but I can tell you that I inferred a potentially misleading meaning from it and so, clearly, did others! Would it be weird if something was now billed as "the return of the Daleks"? I think yes, you perhaps might think no, if you are not allergic to non-unique "the return"s. :) Having said all that I think that you were absolutely correct to nip in the bud the counting tendency (which was clearly going to get annoying), and that your "recurring monsters" fix is brilliant! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If I may nitpick, it seems that in order to RETURN one needs to have previously BEEN there. Now they WERE on earth previously in "Blink" but not Manhattan. So obviously what they mean is "returning to your screen." The Angels will have been out there all the time, somewhere, so from their perspective they have not returned. Indeed, it is shown that they HAD been in Manhattan doing their dirty work for some time, so in that sense "return" thus means "returns to the awareness of the Doctor" who via him we are vicariously witnessing as a return. But the Angels, if they were to speak, would not say "we're baaaa-aaaack" because they were there all the while, never having once been there, left, and then came back. Jac12358 (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Uncredited

Caitlin Blackwood reprises her role as young Amelia, possibly using archive footage from Series 5, at the end of this episode. She's not listed in the credits however. Should we add her to the cast list with 'uncredited' in brackets? Verifiability may be a problem with this I admit, as I can only find forums and wikias that mention it. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure this is worth bothering for a two-second scene. Mezigue (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Location on River's timeline/A Time of Angels

At least in the BBCAmerica cast, there are small sections (likely what would have been part of DW Confidential in the past), which, for this episode, Alex Kingston notes that for River Song's perspective, this adventure takes place right before "The Time of Angels" in her personal timeline, and, more importantly, explaining her reaction of dismay at seeing Amy in that episode. I'm not putting that in until some source affirms this, but it would be something to watch for. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

BBC One didn't show any of these clips - not that they normally do this anyway. In the absence of Confidential, behind the scenes clips have regularly appeared on the BBC's doctor who website. There are 9 clips [1] relating to The Angels Take Manhatten and, while a few do have Alex Kingston commenting on the episode, none of them touch on this particular subject. I'm assuming (as there's obviously little budget for this) when they make the episode they'll interview cast members and then package this along with behind the scenes clips to broadcasters and they decide what they want to do with it. BBC America obviously thought it was significant enough to include this part of Kingston's interview in its broadcast. As for the UK, it might be on the DVD when it's released so we might be able to cite that too. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I definitely don't want to go off just a clip shown on BBCA, particularly if BBC itself isn't hosting it. (It did cut in footage of TToA with Kingston discussing it, and she explicitly puts in the connection, if that helps) Again, hoping that critical reviews might catch that. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The only clip I saw on BBCA was the one talking about their departure. Also, since she is a Professor in "Manhattan", it would have to be before "Silence in the Library" and after "The Time of Angels", where she is just a doctor. From the reviews I read and added to the article no one pointed this out, however. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

But (And this is another thread I hope reviewers pick up on), the Doctor's presence in any database has been wiped and thus, as per this ep, she was released from Stormcage as they couldn't pin her for crimes against a non-existance person (This follows from the Dalek wipe in Asylum, and the lack of info on the Doc from Dinosaurs). But I would have to rewatch to confirm what was said. --MASEM (t) 02:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

River managed to make it to Earth in spite of Amy not remembering her. It could be due to River being Amy's daughter, or due to her Time Lord-ish DNA. Given that, though, she would remember something that was erased from a timeline just like the Doctor would. As for his lack of presence in any database, I find that curious, since Oswin only erased the Dalek database ... or that's what she had intended. (Imagine a Dalek asylum connected to the Universe-wide Internet.) --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe the fact that she has just become a Professor, while she was not in TToA, cements the fact that this happened after her little excursion on the Byzantium. She was also still technically in prison during that time. We have no evidence yet that she wasn't released in the "first place" (if you can call it that in such a "timey-wimey" environment) because of the Doctor's disappearance from databases. --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless my mind's playing tricks, there was a very fast scene where River asserts she was a Professor (ergo: post killing the Doctor) but then says that the person she was charged with killing was no longer in any databases, and thus she was released. This leads to the DOctor's comment about keeping a low profile or something like that. Of course this is all wide speculation and I wouldn't add it without sources, but I'm surprised that no sources have put this into consideration. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The website puts it in the later stages of her timeline, somewhere between "Time of Angels" and "Silence in the Library". Glimmer721 ^talk 18:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then I must have heard it wrong or that it shouldn't have been implied that way from the conversation. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think your confusion comes from forgetting that, in The Time of Angels, she was not yet a professor. As for how the deletion of the Doctor from all databases affected or did not affect her personal timeline, that is as much speculation as many of the items you have rejected in the past. --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounded to me like this is a River after she had "killed" the Doctor - in fact, after her previously depicted "incarceration" because she indicated, I believe, that it was not possible for her to kill a man who did not exist, or was really dead. I forget which, and in the first case, would suggest that time was being rewritten to "forget" the Doctor (if so, how would River remember but not her jailers?) and in the second case, would place River rather late in her timeline, but obviously before Silence in the Library. Jac12358 (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Image - we might already have it?

Ok, so, we have an unusual thing here where there is actually a free image of the Doctor reading the afterward (that production photo) - there's no question about that scene. Outside of having a grimmacing Statue of Liberty shot (which I don't think is justified), this free photo could actually work as the infobox image, given that there was praise for this farewell scene.

Any thoughts on that ? --MASEM (t) 22:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the grimacing Statue of Liberty, despite the "coolness" effect, doesn't this raise a few troubling problems? It calls into question about the French having made her (complete with teeth hidden behind the lips). It sidesteps the issue of her being made from copper (and hollow!) when all the other angels were STONE. It begs the questions of how she was able to manage to leave her pedestal (twice!), cross a large expanse of water and appear beside a building - all while millions of NYC eyes happened not NOT be watching her, or noticing her absence, for that matter! Or why a smaller Angel could not have done the job. This implies they must be telepathic or have some sort of communication link where a statue miles away could know that a man was atop a building and needed to be dealt with, and none of the other hundreds of smaller angels could have done the deed. Jac12358 (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any problems. The production photo does depict important aspects to the plot - the Doctor sat on a Central Park bench reading the last page of a book. The Statue of Liberty bit was possibly more memorable, but it served no other purpose than to shock the audience and to provoke a one-liner by Rory. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The Melody Malone Book

I believe we cannot say that the book the Doctor found in his coat was the same book that the BBC recently released as an eBook, as the latter only contains 9 chapters (omitting the reveal of "Amelia's" departure), no afterword written by Amy Pond-Williams, no mention of meeting Rory with his coffees, and so forth. The book as shown in the episode follows the episode's story, while The Angel's Kiss: A Melody Malone Mystery most certainly does not. --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The book's mentioned as being a prequel. DonQuixote (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

River as Companion

Why is River not credit as a companion in this episode? She is credited as one in her previous appearances, and even joins the Doctor at the end of the episode. Ωphois

You will need to find a source that establishes River Song as a companion in this episode. — Edokter (talk) — 20:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Why, Amy? Why?

I somehow firmly believe that Amy letting the Angels take her back to the 30s is an act of suicide, bearing in mind she lost Rory once in series 5 and I thought she couldn't bear living without him again. alll those in favour or against reply. Visokor (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

She didn't kill herself; she let an angel move her back in time and lived happily ever after. That's not suicide. — Edokter (talk) — 09:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Be that as it may, she still caused her own death. Remember what happened to Rose in "Doomsday"? Visokor (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Think of it as a suicide all you please, but don't put your own interpretation in the article please. Mezigue (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't know what caused her death, but as she died in her 80s and she was in her 20s when the Angel took her, its safe to say her decision in this episode did not cause her death. Mezigue is right, we can't use any of this speculation anyway unless it's sourced elsewhere. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Still, I think after what happened in Series 5 (even though its events were erased at the end of that series), I assumed Amy couldn't bare living without Rory again, hence her suicidal decision to be erased from the series' history. Besides, when an Angel takes you back, it cannot be reversed, even by a paradox.Visokor (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

But still. Why did Amy commit suicide like that? I mean, I know why she did. But why? Visokor (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Listen, this isn't a Doctor Who talk board, OK? Mezigue (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

look, she did that on purpose, which technically means it was suicide. Visokor (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't for all the reasons above, which you seem not to have read. One more time: she did not die, she went back in time to join Rory, not to die. She lived out her life in the past--and she is not erased from the series' history, I have no idea where you are getting that. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I mean, all her adventures with the Doctor might never have happened in the first place... Visokor (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't know why you would believe this, this wasn't indicated in the episode, I would recommend you watch it again. If you have anything constructive to say about the article please talk about it here. If you're only concerned in discussing the plot line of the episode I highly recommend using a forum. Thanks. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Plot

"...while River is taken to his office. Reading the book, she finds a page where the Doctor appears, and she activates a homing beacon allowing the Doctor to land the TARDIS." River wasn't reading the book, was she ? That is wrong, surely ? -- Beardo (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I watched it again and changed it accordingly. -- Beardo (talk) 07:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Angels Take Manhattan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WesleyDodds (talk · contribs) 10:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take care of this one. I'm not a Doctor Who fan per se, but a lot of my friends are, so I have enough working knowledge by osmosis to get by.

Review

• Well-written - I'm not quite familiar with what Wiki's fiction guidelines say on the matter, but are you supposed to refer to characters by first name? It's ok in any case to refer to "Amy" and "Rory" to avoid confusion, but if this was a non-fiction article you'd be writing "Song" instead of "River" all the time.
  • Yes, as far as I've read, fictional characters are called whatever name they are typically referred to in the series/episode. River mostly (if not always) always called "River" in this episode. 23:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Some clarification needed in the plot summary: the change from "Statue of Liberty" to "Statue of Liberty Angel" happens seemingly out of the blue, River Song is explained as having been Malone in the book which could use some elaboration, no explanation of what the TARDIS is (I know what it is and so do you, but not everyone does; something simple like "the Doctor's time machine the TARDIS" would suffice).

Tried to clarify these. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Statue and TARDIS changes are great, but the bit about Malone/River Song is still unclear. I take it the episode shows scenes from the story in the book, and at some point Malone is revealed to be Song? Or is there another approach the episode takes? I'm certain this all makes sense if I were to actually watch the episode, so the lack of clarity is not necessarily your fault . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, nothing is shown of the scenes the Doctor reads aloud of the book (it's not much), but when Rory starts appearing in the passages he's reading, it cuts back to Rory, who is in the 30s and face-to-face with River. He says, "You're Melody?" Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, how about you rephrase it to say "Rory, meanwhile, has been sent back in time to the 1930s by a cherub Weeping Angel where he meets Melody Malone, who is revealed to be his daughter River Song"? Would that rewording accurately reflect the event as depicted in the episode? WesleyDodds (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Try working that note about the episode's continuity somewhere else so you don't have a stubby short subsection lying around.

Just deleted it; there is nothing really important and it's pretty much all worked in to the plot section. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Doctor is reading to Amy from a pulp novel about a detective" could be simplified and made more direct. In "In the meantime Grayle has shown River a damaged Weeping Angel and allowed it to grab her wrist to interrogate her about the Angels", it's unclear who allowed the Angel to grab whose wrist (only later do I figure out it's River Song). The sentence "Through rewrites he went back and forth decided whether or not they should live or die" is confusing and possibly missing words. Some slight clarification could be done to make the article better accessible to unfamiliar readers (someone who knows little to nothing about the show might be wondering what's with this series revival business, or why the link to the series protagonist leads to Eleventh Doctor; also, Amy and Rory are married, right?).

Did what I deemed fit. You can bring things up again if you have questions. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Akin to my confusion about Malone/River, I assume having the Angel touch River ties into some special ability the creature possesses that's been established by previous episodes? WesleyDodds (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, actually not. Typically, it's established that when the Angels touch you, you are sent back in time (like Rory was at the beginning of the episode). Why this is an exception is not explained, at least in the final product. I'm surprised it wasn't singularly mentioned by the reviews as an example of an inconsistancy. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Verifiable with no original research

The only reference I see that's questionable is the Twitter cite. See if you can find the same info reported by a secondary source.

I believe it is mentioned in here, but I've been having trouble with that site recently and can't get it to load so I can properly cite it. I will when it allows me (unless you can , if it works for you). It is possible that they are copying from the Twitter announcement, which is at any rate a primary source from Chibnall. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The cite for the announcement of the Ponds' departure doesn't actually mention the date Moffat made it. However, it does mention he made it during the screen of "the Christmas episode", of which I am sure there have been more than one of in the past. See if you can find a clearer source. If not, you can discard the dating in the sentence and it'd still work fine.

I was going by the date published; it is a BBC source, so this was the official BBC announcement and the time he let the public know. I also said just "December 2011" to allow for it being made the day before published, etc. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Much of the episode was filmed in Central Park in New York City in April 2012". Not quite what the source says; it merely says that they filmed there. Could rephrase or swap out for another source.

I was going by the published date again. I added another source anyway. I also found a source which mentioned a few other locations in NY, and added it. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Other scenes were shot at night in the city, involving old-fashioned cars". The source itself has barely any words and is mostly pictures. I'm sort of iffy on this, but could let it slide. Maybe ditch the "old-fashioned" description unless you find a source that describes the cars as such.

Again, I'm unable to view this site, so I can't see what it says exactly to make necessary changes. Pending for now. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"This marks the second time Doctor Who has filmed principal photography in the United States, the first being the opening sixth series episodes "The Impossible Astronaut"/"Day of the Moon"". As the source is from two years ago and is mainly being used to verify that "The Impossible Astronaut"/"Day of the Moon" were the first filmed in the US, it doesn't verify that "The Angels Take Manhattan" is the second. It'd just take the entire sentence out.

Done. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The cite used to verify that parts of the episode were filmed in Bristol is pretty vague on the matter. I see "some of the series seven action was shot at Bristol University’s School of Physics and the Institute for Advanced Studies" and "Filming is also understood to have taken place in Tyntesfield in Wraxall, and Portland Square", but no mention of this specific episode. The io9 cite for filming in Llanelli (just three pictures of a cemetary, no details about location) is also unclear. Give the Radio Times cite following it confirms filming in Llanelli, just remove that io9 cite.

Agreeing on that. The Bristol thing is a case of someone playing "spot the location" and failing to find a reliable reference. From what I can gather from fansites, it seems that what was shot there was just stairwells; nothing significant. I removed it. I also kept the io9 source in addition to RT just because it has picture evidence and provides further support. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Broad in its coverage - Any information about airings in other countries, namely the US?
  • I mentioned the US airing ([2] - by "air date" it does mean in the US, as evidenced by series 5 episodes having different than UK airdates), but the ratings aren't reported for BBCA unless they break records or are significant airings like premieres or Christmas specials (which has probably been about 7 episodes in the past few years). Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Here's some articles from Entertainment Weekly which might be of use: [3], [4], [5]. That was done with a real quick search, so you might try digging for more. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Added the second one. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
        • You can remove the BBC America cite for the date now, then, as you only need to cite a fact once, and it's preferable to rely on a secondary source (Entertainment Weekly) than a primary one (the website of the network that aired the program). WesleyDodds (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral - No issues

• Stable - No issues

• Illustrations - Image checks out

Assessment pending while I get around to double-checking the refs, but looking rather good so far. In the meantime, tackle the prose issues and address the coverage query and you should be in good shape. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

See comments on the references above. Also, any word on broadcast information outside of the UK? WesleyDodds (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

My main issue right now is the SFX website loading; otherwise I believe I've fixed everything. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

All right, I think it's all set now. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:USERG, you should probably remove the Twitter link entirely, as Chibnall is not discussing himself in the tweet. There's two remaining items mentioned above. Did you see my recommended rephrasing about the River/Melody bit? I understand if you missed it in amongst that wall of text, so I'll repost it: how about you rephrase it to say "Rory, meanwhile, has been sent back in time to the 1930s by a cherub Weeping Angel where he meets Melody Malone, who is revealed to be his daughter River Song"? Would that rewording accurately reflect the event as depicted in the episode?

Yep, I missed that. The way it is presented shows River first, with Rory realizing that she is Malone after, so I added that in to make it clearer ("who he realizes is Melody" etc). The only issue with the Twitter thing is that it says actor availability, while SFX simplifies it to time constraints; the accuracy may be compromised. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The other remaining item is the SFX cite for the "old-fashioned cars". Address these last few items and I can pass the article. Thanks for all your improvements to the page so far. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually just removed this as you replied here. And thank you for the awesome review! Glimmer721 ^talk 00:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I was bold and removed the Twitter cite as well as the bit it was citing. "Time constraints" does not necessarily preclude actor availability problems, and you're better off avoiding potential BLP issues by citing the Twitter post. By all means restore it when you get a reliable secondary source that mentions it. Same goes with the source used to support filming at Cardiff University--I examined it and it didn't specify where in Cardiff it was filmed or for which episode, so I removed it.

The article meets the GA requirements now, so I am finally passing it. Thanks again for all your hard work; though I only have the faintest knowledge of the Doctor Who franchise, the article was a pleasant, informative read. If you ever decide to try and push this to potential Featured Article status, it's highly recommended that you track down the print issue of Radio Times mentioned in this reference, and examine other potential print sources that may exist. The web cites the article currently relies allow you to meet the GA requirements handily, but for FA status, you want to ensure that you are comprehensive. Lastly, I hope you apply some of my comments here to both past and current GA noms you have worked out, so as to ensure that all your work is as best as it can be. Keep up the good work. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Time Paradox?

I understand that Karen Gillam didn't want to make future appearances on the show but I don't get whatever "paradox" prevents The Doctor to going back in time to see Amy & Rory. It doesn't make any sense. This article doesn't state that there is some kind of fixed point in time that can't be changed. It seems like a plot device to explain why they don't appear on future episodes but doesn't make sense with the understanding of time travel that the show has set up. I understand that the show is constantly reinventing itself and the laws its universe runs by but this one seems contrary to what has been seen in its history. Better to cast them in a parallel universe.

I understand that this is not a Doctor Who discussion board but this "paradox" is a point that could use a little be more explanation in the article. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

TATM behind-the-scenes footage of filming

Behind the scenes footage

I don't edit a lot of Doctor Who-related articles; would this be something that could be added to the article? — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Angels Take Manhattan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160329172241/http://gothamist.com/2012/04/12/doctor_who_is_filming_in_nyc_this_w.php to http://gothamist.com/2012/04/12/doctor_who_is_filming_in_nyc_this_w.php
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130420163247/http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/09/29/review-of-doctor-who-%E2%80%98the-angels-take-manhattan%E2%80%99/ to http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/09/29/review-of-doctor-who-%E2%80%98the-angels-take-manhattan%E2%80%99/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)