Talk:River Song (Doctor Who)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Delete!

Does this page even have to exist. so far, we only have two lines. I say, we delete this page, or move it somewhere like a list of Doctor Who characters... --Quinnfeld (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Age of the Doctor when he meets River Song ?

In "Silence in the Library" River song says to the Doctor: 'You're younger than I've ever seen you.' I find it strange that a younger River Song would then meet a younger (well, physically, not chronologically) Doctor in the 2010 series. Is anyone else puzzled by this? 74.89.66.34 (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding. An older Doctor met a younger River when they met for the first time. Thus a younger Doctor - a previous incarnation to the one she knew - met an older River. Makes perfect sense. 207.67.97.117 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge Suggestion

Can I suggest that we wait until next week's episode until something is done about this, and then we'll have more information as to her signicance. Edgepedia (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability

This article seems to fail notability tests - she is only on screen in one story, and is generally considered to not be a companion. IMO this page should be moved to the list of DW characters - although, if someone can provide a good enough case, it might be able to stay. In the meantime, I shall assess and generally clean up the article - Weebiloobil (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs some more info, but she is an incredibly significant character in the Doctor Who universe. Case in point: Mr. Russel T. Davies from Doctor Who Confidential: "River Song is one of the most important characters we've seen in the series... someone who is vital to his life" ... so, surely notability is without question here, n'est-ce pas?

And I strongly challenge that she's "generally considered" not to be a "companion." But whether a consensus arises that that's the case or not, she's no less significant whether we can attach that vaguely-defined category to her anyway. —Shübop"Shadang"Âlang 01:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, as there has only been two episodes that she has been a part of (and dies by the end of the second one), we have no inkling of when she will be coming back - or even if. As Tennant is leaving the series at the end of the year, the entire instance might be anachronistic. As well, there is no telling if Kingston would be reprising her role as Song. So, as you see, we are at an impasse created by WP:CRYSTAL. The article seems premature. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree we can't predict the future, and we shouldn't try. Whether we see her again or not, she is still significant/notable. A number of episodes does not necessarily define such notability. As for Tennant leaving the series - that's just a rumor at this point :) and should have no bearing either way on what we're talking about. —Shübop"Shadang"Âlang 02:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but real world significance adn relevance SHOULD decide notability, and there is not enough of it.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? For one thing it's a fictional character, and for another thing, see the quote from Russell T. Davies above. I can't imagine why this is even a question. —Shübop"Shadang"Âlang 15:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that you are correct about the leaving hte series bit. The series is going on hiatus for a year in '09, and Tennant will do theatre work. No word if he is signed for the 2010 series (season). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think some editors are confused about what Wikipedia considers notable. There is a Doctor Who Wikia article on River Song, which needs some work, if you need somewhere to direct your energies.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think some editors need to be less condescending and simply explain their position regarding the notability of this article in regards to the information already presented to justify it. —Shübop"Shadang"Âlang 21:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

How about, she's unimportant. She's no Rose, Martha, Sarah, Jack or Donna. You Whovians should consider what's important in the real world. She was a supporting character, for a two-part episode. I wish editors weren't so impatient and to just wait if Moffat makes Kingston the companion in the 2010 series. Alientraveller (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not so. See Russel Davies' quote above. —Shübop"Shadang"Âlang 16:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What's more, it's not like the information is "lost" if you redirect the article and leave it in the history, in user-space or on Wikia.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the RTD quote is sufficient to establish notability outside the series. Has The Times or even Digital Spy discussed the character's notability? With Captain Jack for instance, we have the numerous articles about the various facets of the character, and the popularity that led to the spin-off. With Donna, we have reviews of her characterisation. A good example is Captain John Hart, in Torchwood, who arguably has more real-world information about his conception, casting, reception and characterisation but still resides best in the "list of Torchwood characters" article because he's still not a topic of discussion in his own right.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm sure those exist. It's just a matter of taking the time to find them. Either way, the RTD quote clearly establishes that she's not "unimportant". —Shübop"Shadang"Âlang 03:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course Davies would say she's important, he's the producer, a showman. What I mean by important is nothing to do with the episode's story. Is not everything important to the Doctor considering he's either trying to save or battle it? Yes, but not in the real world. Alientraveller (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Important in a real world sense would be "Jack Harkness is noted as a positive role for LGB young people... was so popular he got his own spin-off show... hailed as a breakthrough portrayal of... etc." Were River Song to receieve a comic book spin-off or a theme park named after her, it would be another situation. Clearly there is some thought in her creation and within the story she is meant to represent an "important character" but this has not been translated into real-world significance... if she were to recur, we could discuss the various plot devices Moffat opens up by introducing this character in this way etc. Basically, fictional character articles should be about 70% "behind-the-scenes" content, with a small chunk of "character history" or conceptual history / appearance history. Furthermore, there appears to be some crede amongst Wikipedians that companions are automatically notable... which is not automatically true. For example, Adam Mitchell probably doesn't meet notability standards, where Martha and Rose do. A lot of the older companions may not register on the notability scale either, but I won't touch that issue for now.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense. Like I said before, I'm sure such resources exist on some level, and it's just a matter of time and effort to find them and compile them here. —Shübop"Shadang"Âlang 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sexual relationship?

River handcuffs the Doctor and he says "why do you even have handcuffs?!", to which she replies with a cheeky grin "Spoilers". I interpreted that as a flirtatious remark. Any agreement? --Anime No Kyouran (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he becomes a cop later on. Maybe she's a criminal. Or a werewolf. Or a werewolf criminal. Or maybe he becomes a blacksmith. Or she starts out as one. There's no way to tell, really, so perhaps we can maybe perhaps sorts kinda stop speculating until hwe have. hard. concrete. citable. fact. Not speculation. Sorry for putting the foot down, but this sort of speculation has no place in an encyclopedia. At all. Ever. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let's keep speculation out of this. The cryptic remark does sound sexual in nature, but until the meaning is clarified, it is simply a cryptic remark and nothing more.(24.62.100.251 (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC))

By his face

I don't know that River Song recognises The Doctor "by his face" so I've removed that. Actually in the first scene I see no sign that she recognises him at all. Although she quickly realises who he is, knowing the Doctor she would not expect him to have the same appearance every time she met him. She refers to his eyes at one point, but that could be a look in the eyes that survives regeneration, rather than a physiological change in the eye associated with ageing. --Jenny 13:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

But she has to ask him which events they've experienced together, when she was thumbing through her diary (crash of the Byzantium, Picnic at Asgard). Clearly, she has been with him on at least those events within that regeneration, or she wouldn't have to ask. Beyond that, of course it's possible that she also knew him in his next regeneration(s) though. —Shübop"Shadang"Âlang 15:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather a lot of speculation for an encyclopedia, wouldn't you think? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously no speculation would end up in the article itself. But I think it's useful to talk through the possibilities here. From everything I can see, it's made entirely clear that River recognizes the current Doctor by his appearance. Given the nature of the show, I think that's worth noting, without expounding on "future regenerations" in the article. —Shübop"Shadang"Âlang 14:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not concur. Best to leave it alone until we have something citable to address the incongruity. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted. But I'm not clear what you mean by "the incongruity"? —Shübop"Shadang"Âlang 19:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

When a time lord regenerates, they look different than they did before. Song recognizes the Doc (though she notes he was older than he was when she sees him), and we know he's currently undergoing regeneration. Ergo, the incongruity is, how she could she recognize him when he is no longer the same person. Who knows? Maybe the regeneration will give us Tennant again. Until we know for sure, this isn't for sure, and a new doc might spell the end of notability for this article as a one-off character. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw a lovely explanation of this somewhere - I can't remember where. The Doctor somehow overcomes the 12-reg rule (which, let's face it, will almost certainly happen), and so lives (or should it be dies?) on into his 40th regeneration, where he meets River for the first time. He next sees her in his 42st form, where they have the picnic at Asgard. He next pops back in his 45th regeneration, where they go to Byzantium. He next goes in his 47th, where they go somewhere else, and then on. He either gives River pics of all his regenerations, or she is somehow able to recognise him across them, so she knows who he is. However, she does not know which regeneration he is - 41st, 44th, 50th - and so dates him from what they've done together, such as Asgard or Byzantium. It just so happens that he is in his 10th regeneration - but how would she know that? This just goes to show that other explanations exist, she doesn't have to travel with the 10th. This is, of ocurse, OR - but then, so is saying she travels with the 10th, as there are other options available - Weebiloobil (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm willing to concede that point. It's certainly not as clear as her status as a "companion" of the future. —Shübop"Shadang"Âlang 21:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evidence to suggest that like her fellow 51st Century male counterpart, Jack Harkness, River Song might be omnisexual? Calibanu (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)User Calibanu

No. She's only affectionate towards the Doctor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.119.226.145 (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Companion ?

I've just reverted this change [[1]]. Just a longer comment to explain myself.

Doctor who is a (or many) works of fiction. To date, the character of River Song has appeared in only two episodes. I think it is highly likely that she is going to appear again, but for how long and the story is not at the moment known. As I said in the revert, 'Anything can happen in Doctor Who and be explained by a line of dialogue', so we do not need to have the same actors for the same character to appear - I'm sure that you don't have to be a timelord to be able to change your appearance! Because of this, I think we need to be very clear not to read too much into where the BBC are going to take this story line. The character of River Song clearly knew the Doctor very well in his future, but she has not yet appeared as a companion in any episodes.

Edgepedia (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I now notice there's a much bigger discussion at Talk:Companion (Doctor Who) Edgepedia (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Update : The End of Time clip

She pilots the TARDIS with the Doctor. Doesn't that make her a companion of the Doctor ? 193.56.37.1 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability & Article Status

There is plenty to establish that she is notable, from several different perspectives. Besides the fact that Davies called her "one of the most important characters," which Edokter so flippantly dismisses, there is a wealth of "out-of-universe" source material, including press reaction to her return, quotes from a variety of cast & crew discussing the importance of the character, and TWO official toys created based on her. Short of some kind of dissertation on the importance of River Song to society in general, I can't imagine what you could possibly require to keep the article. Edokter, you say (here) that "those companions that do have their own articles, do so because they have much more information relating to production, casting, and so on". Really?.... How about: Adam Mitchell, Cassandra (Doctor Who), Sabalom Glitz, Kamelion, Grace Holloway, Melanie Bush, White Guardian, all of which have as much or less of the type of source material you're describing - less, in most cases? I hope you're planning on deleting/redirecting those articles as well. Otherwise, add the source material that you seek and keep the article open. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 22:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Granted, not all of them pass notability criteria, and should perhaps be redirected as well. In this case, a mere mention that Alex Kingston may return, and then not even as River Song (which makes this unrelated information), is not enough to maintain a seperate article. You should read the archives on Talk:Companion (Doctor Who) and Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Doctor Who to see past discussions, and perhaps continue the discussion there. — Edokter • Talk • 00:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been an active part of those discussions, and since new information has been added, there needs to be time for a consensus to form on whether it's valid. There's no reason to assume that Alex Kingston would return as a different character... to even imagine that that's the case is practically OR. In light of the fact that new information has been added to the article, it's unreasonable for you alone to assume the responsibility to delete the article. Give it some time for at least a few other editors to weigh in before you get so trigger happy. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, any discussion about the validity of THIS article should be made here. Whether or not she's included in the "Companion" article is a matter of debate at that article. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Freema Agyeman returned as a different character from her first appearance in "Army of Ghosts"/"Doomsday". Rather than speculate about Kingston's role, probably as River Song, just wait until it airs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The way the article reads now shows no bias one way or the other about that information, and I think is appropriate for just stating the facts. But Freema Agyeman played a very minor part prior to her appearance as Martha. The River Song character was essential to the plot for both episodes she appeared in, so there's no reason to assume that she would play a different part any more than we should assume that seeing photos of the Tardis doesn't necessarily mean that it's not a police-box-shaped Coke machine rather than the actual Tardis. Anyway... I think we're in agreement about how the article should (not) address this, so I'll shut up now. Thanks ;) —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 21:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, "there's no reason to assume" anything. Just wait until the episode airs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. But if reliable sources with new information come to light before the episode airing, they may be worth including as well. So, just wait for either of those things. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 21:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment The concern I have is that the present arrangement (with her text being placed in the "Silence" article) is not the best approach. Whether or not the character warrants a stand-alone article, she is obviously important to the series. However, information about her comes across as being somewhat marginalized by being sidelined in the episode article rather than in a character article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer that the article be here. I moved it to 'Silence' as a concession for other editors. In any case, the appropriate place for it is not the 'Companions' article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Affiliations

Hope nobody minds, but I've added the Eleventh Doctor into the biobox. Admittedly, we don't yet know how big a role River plays in Series Five, but pictures from filming (and the BBC trailer) place her firmly as an acquaintance/companion/recurring character/whatever in the tableaux of the show. Absurdtrousers (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it as there is no source saying that River Song is to return. The only source(s) we have say that the actor is returning, but as you say we have no indication in what role. So could be playing River Song's sister, a clone, or there is another explanation. Rather than make a mistake, it's best to wait for confirmation. Edgepedia (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair point Absurdtrousers (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

By the same argument, any mentions of appearances of Daleks, Weeping Angels, even the Tardis, in the new series/season, should be removed, if sourced solely on the appearance of them in the trailer for the new season, or from photos showing their appearance. Without confirmation otherwise, we could just as easily assume that these are actually a Dalek-shaped gumball machine, a concrete statue created in the shape of the Weeping Angels, and an antique police box, respectively. ;) —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 20:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You know I think you're right. Just think of the possibilities of something-that-looks-like-a-dalek-but-isn't? Would it qualify for the "dalek stories" template? Just think of the edit war! However when we were writing about The End of Time episodes, we waited for official confirmation that John Simm was playing the master. Edgepedia (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We know the actress for River Song was filmed for the new series. We know there are references to a crashed craft, Byzantium, in that episode. We know that River Song mentioned the "crash of the Byzantium". If we use our brain, it is fairly clear that River Song will be in the episode.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's fairly clear what's wrong with giving the reader all the evidence, referencing were we got it from, and allowing the reader to make their own mind up? When does brain become orginal research? Surely the act of placing a character in a category, saying that someone will appear means that we know it i.e. in wikipedia terms we have a reliable source to confirm this. The risk I can see here is that some information pre-broadcast can be misleading. Edgepedia (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and you will notice that I have not edited the article to say that River Song will be in the new season. It is best to just wait and see. But if some other editor does happen to draw such an obvious inclusion, they don't need to be lambasted for it, as has been the response of some editors on this and similar issues.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"though intuitively the fact that she had to question the Tenth Doctor on his first and her last meeting, to ascertain where he was on his own timeline, implies that she does not understand the order of his incarnations."

Who writes that bs? It doesnt necessarily imply it. Wild speculations that shouldnt be in that article...

for the record

I reckon River Song is in fact the Doctor. I don't have a source or anything, but I'll claim bragging rights if it transpires I'm right :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, PM, but you are not the first to speculate this. I already read that in a German DW discussion and on some talk page here if memory serves me right. So no bragging rights for you.

So far I have already read speculations that she is the Doctor, the Rani, the Master, Romana, Susan Foreman and Random-Time-Lady-who-survived-the-Time-War™ - and that's only the Time Lord related speculations. Steven Moffat would be a lousy writer if any of those speculations were true, I think. Yeah, I know, WP:NOTFORUM and stuff... Regards SoWhy 06:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

heh... you can neatly sidestep 'notforum' by asking (genuinely) if there might be a source for any of this stuff, hence could be included in the article :-) - and I'm not claiming sole bragging rights - I think everyone who nails their colours to the mast gets to have a good old brag.... I mean the 'very good man' that river killed is clearly the doctor, right? Privatemusings (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

.. and I think River Song is Amy Pond's daughter (River, Pond, geddit???_ John a s (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

top marks to you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprhys (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Melody / Song was a bit of a give-away. John a s (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, who's going to win the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election? :P

Anyways, I've been pondering (no pun :) whether Russell T Davies had this bit of her backstory figured out from the start (Silence in the Library) or if this is something Stephen Moffat came up with independently? If this is something we could source (has anything come up in an interview or in Confidential?) would be good to inclulde in the "Conception and development" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chartered Wombat (talk • contribs) 11:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Relative timelines

Hi all, I thought it would be good to show the relative timelines of River Song & The Doctor. Apparently I was a little too fast adding this (and made a silly mistake with Pandorica, as noted by DonQuixote). I still thinks this is valuable (and the sorting would be immensely helpful), since the two characters were purposefully created to meet "in the wrong order". The numbers are as stated for sorting purposes only. Of course Byzantium isn't the 500th time they met, but it's a number that has the proper relative order (not absolute value). Would be interested to get some feedback on this, don't feel like playing a yes/no game (adding/deleting section). dyve 11:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyve (talk • contribs)

The problem is that a lot of it will be guess work. For example, in the version that you inserted, you listed Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone and Ep11/Ep13 as sequential. We don't know that for sure nor how many meetings they had between the two (500/501? or 500/502? or 500/998?). Anyway, the numbers for River are rather arbitrary as a result. DonQuixote (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right, best to hold off on this until we know more. Thanks for input. dyve 14:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyve (talk • contribs)

The Doctor's wife??

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It seems that there was an admission on the 11th doctor's part that (he believes that) River Song will be his wife (this knowledge comes to the 11th Doctor through the 10th Doctor's adventure "Silence of the Library") and a half admission by River to Amy in "Flesh and Stone" saying that Amy is good, not necessarily right, but good. I won't claim this is gospel, it's as good a theory as any.

As to who (or what) River is, she is *NOT* any kind of Time Lord/Lady, at least not overtly. This is established by the 9th Doctor, when talking to Rose, saying he'd know in here (tapping his head) if there were any Time Lords alive. This 'eliminates' Susan, The Rani, Jenny and Romana. Unless of course there is a cameleon arch involved. River Song is not shown with any type of fob watch (yet) that would contain the essence of a Time Lord/Lady. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hx823 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither the Doctor nor River actually confirmed that they were husband and wife. River refuses to confirm Amy's conclusion that she is his wife, but states that Amy is very good. The Doctor doesn't either - Amy asks, the Doctor pauses and then answers "Yes" to Amy's previous question (about his grumpy face). River also doesn't say for certain that she is married (although her definite 'Yes' to the Doctor's two questions suggests that she is married, but to who...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.237.62 (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a talk page for an encyclopaedia article, not a discussion forum. The writers meant for the relationship to be ambiguous at this time. Peter Grey (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Home era

I think, the home era should be set to unknown. The last episode and the fact that River travels in time make her homee era unclear. Maybe her first appearance in Silence in the Library was incidential. 79.228.29.58 (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that she was imprisoned in the Storm Cage in the 51st Century, but later appears in the 52nd Century (specifically dated as 5145 CE in The Pandorica Opens/Big Bang, I must concur with the above assessment. Calibanu (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)User Calibanu

The whole point of the character is that she's a mystery; even the Doctor does not (as yet) know her origins, and given her (perhaps limited) time travelleing, her origin at this point could be almost anything. Peter Grey (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Is She A Time Traveller?

It suggests in the bio that she is also a time traveller. Is this correct?

It is said so by Amy in The Impossible Astronaut, so yes, as far as we know, she is. Regards SoWhy 18:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

She time-travelled at the beginning of The Pandorica Opens and at the end of The Big Bang (Doctor Who). DonQuixote (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers, especially major spoilers

And as usual the Wikipedia nazis must enforced their inconsiderate no spoiler warning - currently the only country who knows her birth name are the UK, others will follow over weeks and months - would it hurt anything to have it tucked away behind a spoiler warning? No. Do they give a crap about curtsey? Hell no. This is wikipedia. --IceHunter (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The above can be said for any work of fiction (novels, movies, etc.). If you don't want to know the details, then don't search for the information. (See The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009 film) vs The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film).) DonQuixote (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Not true. I took the time to download it here in the US and was well pleased to find my theory was correct. You are correct however about one thing, WP:SANTA doesn't exist. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 04:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Once a piece of information is in the public domain, that's it. The cat's out of the bag. We're adults (well, some of us are, anyways) and we have free will to decide if we want to check up on something or not. Chartered Wombat (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. This is clearly notable information about the character, but I consider it is not appropriate for the lead. It is an in-universe perspective, where it is most notable about the character from an out of universe perspective that in each episode she appears, there are more hints and revelations about the nature of the character. I think we owe courtesy to American viewers who have not yet seen "A Good Man Goes to War". I have changed the offensive title of this section, while taking into account the hurt it expresses. Abigailgem (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You said it's notable, but it's not suitable for the lead - then why did you delete both the lead and the body? At least keep the info somewhere in the page. Chartered Wombat (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it's notable information, it belongs with other notable information. And if it's the character's name, it belongs in the lead section per WP:MOS. That's just how articles are written. Please do not remove it again without consensus to do so. I understand the frustration mentioned above, although I would strongly advise against using terms like "nazis" when referring to people you disagree with because that's really not going to convince them of your point of view. But I managed not to read articles that I knew would contain such information until I watched the episode myself and others are able to do so as well, especially if they know, that Wikipedia has a no-spoiler-warnings-policy. If things are "spoiled" although you knew that Wikipedia will contain such information, then it's really your fault for reading the article. Regards SoWhy 11:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

My delete was from the lead, not the body. I have considered WP:Spoiler, WP:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and WP:Spoiler warning/RfC. I have not reverted this, and indeed watched the episode before coming to this page. My concern is the distress caused by a major spoiler in the first line of the lead section. My argument against placing it there is that it is overly specific for the lead section, given that secondary sources (as yet) give greater coverage and weight to other aspects of the character. I think it is a more serious spoiler, and the distress should be given more weight in considering where in the article the information should be revealed. WP:COMMON. Abigailgem (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

@Abigailgem said: "My delete was from the lead, not the body." - Actually, you did [2] Chartered Wombat (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you consider my edit, you will see that the spoiler is deleted from the lead section, but remains in the body of the article, under the heading "Appearances". Kindly do not make false accusations.Abigailgem (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead_section)#Alternative names, "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph", so it's quite correct to include it in the lead. The alternative (birth) name of River Song is pretty important in the show's narrative and the BBC itself (see two sections below) has changed their pages to reflect this. Regards SoWhy 12:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No, because River Song is fictional. She's not a real person. This isn't a "real" fact about her that's always been the case. The Real World context is paramount.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Is River a Time Lord?

In the sidebox, it says that River is "Species Human/Timelord". Do we know for sure that she's part time lord? Even if "A Good Man Goes to War" revealed that she has elements of time lord DNA in her, doesn't mean for sure that she's a Human/Time Lord hybrid (unlike Donna Noble at the end of Season 4). She could just be an evolutionary step. If no one objects, I'm going to take that out. Chartered Wombat (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

So anyways, just because she contains some Time Lord-ish DNA, that doesn't mean that she's "Human/Time Lord" any more than a tomato containing fish genes is now a "Tomato/Fish". Chartered Wombat (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, could we at least change the species to "Near-Human", then? A tomato containing fish genes may not be a tomato/fish, but it certainly isn't a normal tomato, either.

User:Asplich (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2011 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.244.6 (talk)

Actually a tomato containing fish genes would be a tomato/fish. The action of having fish genes means that it is longer a tomato. Of course if it actually looked like a tomato we'd probably call it one, but with a tomato/fish this is unlikely. 92.20.131.214 (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A "Tomato/Fish" implies a lot more than a tomoto with some added fissh genes, just as "Human/Time Lord" implies a lot more than a human who's DNA was mutated by the time vortex. Chartered Wombat (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

She's not quite a Time Lord though. She's a human mutant, and has mutated into a kind of Time Lordish thing.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If we accept that she is a developed human, can I point out that she would have to be a Human/Auton hybrid, given that Rory is an Auton? (I know that the universe was rebootedd, but he still admits to having nearly two thousand years of memories, which is...unusual for humans. BTW he is nearly twice the age of The Doctor)82.0.25.104 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Lance T.

Should she be put as a "Part Time Lord"? It seem to me that this information should include that it is unconfirmed what species she actually is. ReelAngelGirl (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Until there is a source that says that River is anything other then human, we list her as human. — Edokter (talk) — 23:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This is why I hate infoboxes. Regardless, she is a human, albeit an unusual one. And she's not really a Time Lord either. Can we just wait for an episode, or authoritative and reliable source, to make an unequivocal comment on the matter? It's not urgent and it doesn't really warrant the offensive language which some anonymous editors have been getting into with their edits. She's a TV character, on a British sci-fi series, and it's not even been made 100% clear what's going on yet. So just leave it alone.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Could we maybe change the designation to "Human/"Time Head""? After all, that HAS been referenced in the series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehallie (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers

Should the detail about River being Amy and Rory's daughter really be in the opening paragraph? It is a gigantic spoiler and really shouldn't be one of the first things people see simply by clicking the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.10.87 (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's on the BBC's webpage as well, so it's really a moot point. River Song on BBC's website DonQuixote (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. See the section two above as well. Basically, if you do not want to read spoilers, do not read something that by definition will include all available important information, such as an encyclopedia. Regards SoWhy 12:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think based on the nature of the reveal, and the fact that the character is known exclusively as River Song elsewhere and that the mystery is part of the character, the "real name" should move to para 3 however.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead_section)#Alternative names disagrees with you on this. Also, you are an experienced editor, so you should know about WP:BRD. The name was removed from the first sentence once and reverted, so you should not have removed it from the first sentence again without discussion. Please undo your edit and allow a discussion. Regards SoWhy 12:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's important to realize that the English language version of Wikipedia is read not only by those in the UK, but also those in the US, where this detail has not yet been revealed - it's a HUGE spoiler for US readers. All references to Wikipedia guidelines, manuals of style, and editor pissing contests aside… reason itself would dictate waiting another 6 days to include this info until it's no longer a spoiler to a huge number of readers of the article across the pond/"river" ;) —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 00:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a difference between six days or six months...or even a years...which have been the case for previous series. Besides, the information is everywhere (BBC.co.uk, tv.com, etc), so it's a moot point. DonQuixote (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not "everywhere" - it's not on the BBC America website - the channel on which the episode will air in 6 days. :) There's no reason to assume that US readers would somehow automatically know that the episode aired a week early in another country, and that the article would contain major spoilers. There's no "spoiler" warning at the top. One would naturally assume that the article would include all available information up until the present - NOT from "the future." —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 04:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

And after it's shown in the US? What about other countries - eg Australia, New Zealand, South Africa. It's on the BBC website and all over the internet, and one would naturally assume that the article would include all available information. Edgepedia (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"There's no reason to assume that US readers would somehow automatically know that the episode aired a week early in another country". Yes there is. It is not a US show. Similarly British readers will know that How I Met Your Mother will have aired first in the US and that season six will already be complete; and that Glee season 2 has already aired in the US. So if they don't want spoilers, then they won't go to the Wikipedia pages about the shows. (Personally, I did want spoilers, so have already been to those pages to check stuff out.) PoisonedPigeon (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point - could argue that including something depends on whether a show has aired in its "home" market. Personally, I'm not thrilled that it's delayed a week in Australia, but there are (ahem) ways around that. Chartered Wombat (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's understandable that UK-based eidtors don't realize that BBC has very emphatically and specifically promoted that this season of Doctor Who was airing the same day in the US as it was in the UK. There's no reason US viewers would naturally realize that "The Almost People" and "A Good Man..." were aired a week earlier in the UK, and didn't skip a week like we did in the US. But that's what happened. Most US viewers would assume the episode with the big revelation hasn't aired yet ANYWHERE… and when they Google "River Song" this week, they get this major spoiler from the very first sentence of this article, with no warning at all. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a reliable source of that, too. ;) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/23/arts/television/doctor-who-us-premiere-will-not-be-delayed.html —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the entire article? "By then, the bicontinental schedule will have been interrupted by an American holiday. BBC America is running old episodes of “Doctor Who” on Memorial Day weekend — because television viewing levels are generally low that weekend — so the June episodes will be a week behind Britain." DonQuixote (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

*I* did, yes. But that's not the point. American television audiences don't get their viewing information from the New York Times. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 20:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So...what was your point in citing the New York Times? If you're right in that most US viewers don't get their TV information like this, then they probably don't know that it's being aired on the same day. And for those that found out that the episodes were airing the same day from various other sources, then they should've read the rest of the respective articles. DonQuixote (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Simply to prove that my earlier statement which was questioned by other editors was true. I have no idea what you're getting at about viewers who don't plan their TV viewing based on the New York Times not knowing about schedules otherwise... that doesn't make even the tiniest bit of sense (you're really going down a rabbit hole here, btw) . —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 20:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you describe how most US viewers get their TV information in regards to the episodes airing on the same day other than through the New York Times and other such media. DonQuixote (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My point is that BBC made a big deal out of the fact that it aired the same day, starting with the Christmas episode. (their promos for that episode centered around the tagline "This year, Christmas won't be late." The NYT link was just evidence of their push to get that word out. As for where US viewers get their TV info other than a tiny contingency of people in one city who rely on the newspaper for that, I'll leave you to chase your own windmills… The *point* here is that, yes, in fact, what I said before: "There's no reason to assume that US readers would somehow automatically know that the episode aired a week early in another country." —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 21:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Then...you should complain to the BBC for misleading you. Other than that, most intelligent Americans know that Memorial Day is a US-only holiday and has no influence on any other country's TV schedule. Anyway, this is all irrelevant to Wikipedia's concerns. DonQuixote (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't mislead, personally, but thanks for your concern. The point is that most Americans would have no idea that (and if so, even then, necessarily that it was because of the holiday) the schedule was different. Clearly you disagree, but the point here is about whether a major spoiler to a majority of the article's readers should be revealed in the first paragraph - and if editors of this page by and large choose to operate under the "Wikipedia spoils everything" guideline, that's another issue entirely, and I can't really argue with that if that's the guideline.

And I'm not sure what's up with this epidemic here - I've, amazingly, just had to suggest this to another editor on this same discussion page - there's really no reason to insult other editors in order to make your point. Editors who are over the age of 14 understand this. (See what I did there?) —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 01:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternative names recommendations refers to real people, SoWhy. We have to try very hard as editors not make the mistake of writing about fictional characters as people. If everything is in its proper context, then issues such as spoilers should seem inconsequential.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If you cannot write, don't.

The article needs to be written from a Real World Perspective, first of all. It needs to dispassionately recount the facts of the character's history in an expedient way. Focus should be given to the behind-the-scenes developments in creating River and in producing and airing the character's appearances. Transmission dates are to be encouraged because they allow readers who are uninitiated in Doctor Who to make sense of the character's history; e.g., she replaced Jack as the Monsters File narrator long before we knew who she "really" was. To this end, a 'biographical' style is to be avoided at all costs. When the first line, in bold typeface, refers to River Song, it does not refer to the fictional person of one River Song but rather to the concept of River Song-the-character as created by real people and received in popular culture. She is not "born Melody Pond", but rather, it is later revealed that she was born that in her fictional history. It would mean nothing to say it in the first line, and in fact, to do so gives a false impression of how the story was told; it makes more sense to announce it, emboldened if you like, contextually in the second paragraph. For comparison, see Martha's double-barrel surname (Martha Jones) or Faith from Buffy's late-revealed last name (Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), disclosed later in a non-biographical style. If Jack Harkness' real name were to be revealed, it would NOT go in the first paragraph of that article's Lead section.

Editors who wish to write about characters as if they were real are encouraged to do so at TARDIS Wikia's equivalent page.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you cannot be constructive without being rude and insulting to other editors, don't. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just trying to very emphatically explain the principles of the Writing about Fiction guidelines in relation to this article.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that… but you know what they say about honey vs. vinegar… suggesting that people who aren't adhering to a particular WP guideline "cannot write" is not really going to solve anything, now is it? —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 00:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

BBC "Monster Files"

Note that the BBC's web site clearly describes the video clip(s) as being hosted by the character of River Song, rather than the actor Alex Kingston. Note the following caption from the "Weeping Angels" page:

"River Song shares the secrets of the Weeping Angels."

--Ckatz^chat_spy 23:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Have viewed it. Yes it should be on the page. Where it is imo no. Reason it's out of the scope of the river story, she just proclaims that she has the book which was a given in the story of the Angels ep. It is for me nothing to do with her story and should be in a different section which is out of scope, so maybe where the thing about the river doll thing is. As for me it is out of scope for that section as it is NOT the river song story, where as TV episodes, prequals, books and game appearences etc would be. Monster files imo are not within that scope. Hope you can understand that. Good twins (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Good twins, you are wrong again. It is about the character's appearances and emphasizes their "real world" provenance: dates, creators, medium, etc. Wikipedia does not indulge in character's biographies for the sake of retelling a story in bad prose.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Zythe, if the article is written poorly, as you've mentioned repeatedly… edit it. See WP:BB. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 00:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I know that. Typically bits are written satisfactorily, and then someone comes along and well-meaningly makes it bad. That's not a case of Be Bold, but of being judicious with reverts and amendments. Editors need to be told, additionally, when their entire editing ethos is way off, just so everyone can be on the same page about what the article needs to look like.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Importance of matters for lead section

When things have quietened down a bit and we mad keen Doctor Who fans are editing less (over a hundred edits in 5-7 June) I would like to achieve consensus on what to put in the lead section. In previous discussions on spoilers, and wikipedia style, some objected to stating that the character in-universe was born Melody Pond because that was a Spoiler. My view on that is that the distress at reading a spoiler should be taken into account, but I think Wikipedia consensus in writing about fiction is that an encyclopaedia has to mention spoilers.

The second paragraph currently states, "Within the series' narrative, River Song is an experienced future companion of series protagonist the Doctor." I do not think that is now the case: she has been a companion in about six episodes. I think the most notable thing about the character from an out of universe perspective is that we see her interactions with the character of The Doctor as that character experiences them, and the character remembers things which are in his future. Therefore there are certain mysteries around what the characters' relationship is, and River Song's history, such as who did she kill to go to prison. We should avoid undue weight to any particular mystery here. The important matter for the lead section, out of universe, is that the audience learns more of the characters' interactions as the character of the Doctor, in universe, learns.Abigailgem (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for her companion status?

I don't understand some of your other comments. Perhaps propose some text here?Edgepedia (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No offense but someone needs to rewrite the TV series in cronological order from River's perspecttive so it reads like a proper biography and makes sense. As at the moment it's this ep river met DR, here they did this etc. And not mentioning key things to do with River. Yeah sure she's met the Doctor but like on Imposs Aus and DOM she doesn't reveal a lot about herself thus why is the episode mentioned imo only because they met. Although I expect that imposs aus and DOM will come in for entirely different reasons. Good twins (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't know the chronological order from River's perspective. DonQuixote (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: "experienced future companion", the character is conceived and introduced as such. In all of her appearances, whether one might argue in the capacity of companion or not, she is "an experienced companion" who is from the Doctor's personal future; this is her consistent portrayal. Though it is my original wording, I think genuinely that (so far) I think it's probably the best we've got. Importantly, we must remember there is no fictional present. First and early appearances are also disproportionately important in determining characters' conceptions in the media and public at large; they also more clearly reflect an author's original intention for a character, and a whole host of real world information.

Re: "Melody Pond", though spoilers aren't an issue, one's aversion to them does tell you something rather interesting: they don't belong in the first sentence, particularly in the case of the character's name, solely because to do so over-states the importance of the "real name". Clearly the in-universe "real name" is important, but only so in the context of when it was revealed and after how long. "River Song" is the name of the article, and "River Song" in the first sentence of the lead section should refer not to "imaginary person River Song" but to character-in-the-sense-of-concept River Song. This needn't reflect a "real name" one bit, as it ought to in a fictional "biography". Most importantly, in most of her appearances, she is "River". The mystery is central to the character, as is who she is revealed to be, but it is without a doubt, second paragraph material.

Also, good twins (talk · contribs), you could not be more wrong. Please read Wikipedia's guidelines on Writing About Fiction, which emphasise that the tone must always privilege the real world experience. Importantly, having things in "viewer order" emphasizes the character as a developing figure over the years 2008-2011, subject to various writers and actors' influences on the show in that time.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

How is her name "too much information"?

Going by standard English naming convention, River's surname should have been Williams, from her father, since her parents are married. The reason she has her mother's maiden name instead is pretty obvious to anybody who's familiar enough with Amy's character, but I didn't think that was our target audience here. It's explained succinctly in the show, and that should be part of the article. We don't have to use Amy's line, but if I know this site that'll just lead to a week-long argument over the most apt summary of her intentions. ShaleZero (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and have restored your edit. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 02:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you're both wrong. The whole point is that a paragraph should reflect a "real world" shape of a show, not a character's biographical integrity. It is stated she names the daughter Melody Pond. This very powerfully includes a number of other facts -- such as, she did not name her Williams, for whatever reason. It's not required whatsoever. It's included in the two words "Melody Pond".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that though it's not "required" it is useful… hardly anything is "required" but like ShaleZero suggests, it clarifies the situation, and her naming is very important as part of the character's origins. All that being said, I can see its usefulness but don't really care enough to defend it any further if the consensus is that it shouldn't be included. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 00:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We're sort of required to be expedient (summary style): less details, broad strokes of plot. Writers should collaboratively work towards the clearest and most lucid way of expressing this character's storyline across the series (in a way which reflects the airing of the episodes, and not the character's in-universe story), all the while not getting bogged down by lazy grammatical tools like brackets, or the various kinds of digression that a bad prose style might encourage. (It should be unlike this response, which is very brackety, because I'm writing as I think and also writing to be emphatic.) That's the aim, I think, of anyone trying to write copy. I would argue the solution would be to make it clear that Amy Pond is married to a Rory Williams and names her daughter Melody Pond; everything one needs to know is contained in that arrangement of facts. The superhero/geography teacher thing is cute, but cuteness is definitely a digression.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Last Apperance

Should her Last Appearance in the series be added as "Forest of the Dead?" Technically it will be her last appearance, but was also her first. I know it will be initially confusing to anyone who doesn't think about it but technically it is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.4.246 (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's fiction. The story's told in the order the episodes are shown. Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and "Forest of the Dead" is where she dies, and we've seen that. In the order they are shown her end has played. Her last appearance will have been "Forest of the Dead." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.236.202 (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No no no... Last Appearance applies to the last time someone appears in a show in the real world. I'm pretty sure I saw her appear again after "Forest of the Dead", and she will probably appear again, so her Last Appearance has not come yet. — Edokter (talk) — 21:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Her last appearance is still "Forest of the Dead," even "'in the real world.'" Her time line ends in that episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.4.246 (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In our timeline, it was not her last appearance; she appeared in later episodes. Geez... — Edokter (talk) — 15:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In the real world Forest of the Dead was shown before The Time of Angels so that was not her last appearance. Edgepedia (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Species?

The metatext in the Character Box says not to change "species," as nothing has been verified yet. Are we not considering the DNA under discussion in A Good Man Goes to War as verification? mordicai. (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is discussed above in the Talk:River Song (Doctor Who)#Is River a Time Lord? section. Is she a new species, just because of some Time Lord DNA? Edgepedia (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

...uh...that thread was...um...missing...when I scanned the Contents...yeah, must be...or in other words, poor reading comprehension, Mordicai! This is a totally reasonable solution, & as said, it isn't like this is time sensitive crucial information. Personally, given that "TARDIS radiation exposure" or whatever is what morphed the Gallifreans into Time Lords (according to A Good Man Goes to War-- I confess I've only seen the 11th Doctor & a smattering of the 10th) it would seem REASONABLE, but I'll happily wait for better sourcing from an in-universe source. mordicai. (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Portrayed by

The character River Song is only portrayed by Alex Kingston. The other incarnations of Melody Pond are not River Song. It's not totally unlike the fact that Jack Harkness isn't actually Jack Harkness and that he is not yet the Face of Boe. Listing the other actresses as portraying River Song here would be like listing John Barrowman as one of the people portraying the Face of Boe--they may have the same "soul" but are very different characters. River Song, as an individual, doesn't exist until after Melody regenerates into Alex Kingston--meaning that Alex Kingston is the only person to portray River Song. Furthermore, since we know when she dies, we also know that Alex Kingston will be the only version of River Song we will get. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 13:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

PS. Another example -- Jake Lloyd portrayed Anakin Skywalker, but he never portrayed Darth Vader. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 13:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Unlike Face of Boe vs. Jack Harkness (which has only been implied once), it's been confirmed multiple times on the show that River Song and Melody Pond are in fact the same person and as such the article covers all incarnations of this character, not just the "River Song"-one. If you disagree, please discuss it to the talk page instead of reinstating your edits again. Regards SoWhy 13:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. River Song, as a person, doesn't exist until after she regenerates into Alex Kingston. Until that point she was Melody Pond/ Mels/ etc. Melody only becomes River Song after she is Alex Kingston. In addition, the current consensus is to leave the info out of the article--you're the one trying to include it, so it should be you (not I) that doesn't change the wiki until after it is discussed on the talk page. My notes are there and I will copy this discussion there as well. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 13:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You could argue that River Song and Melody Pond are different incarnations of the same being, just as the Tenth Doctor and Eleventh Doctor are incarnations of the same being.Ratemonth (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but this article is about River Song, not Melody Pond. River Song is an invention. The being of Melody Pond doesn't become River Song until after she regenerates into Alex Kingston. If the article was renamed to Melody Pond (which I would oppose) then this would be a moot point, but as it stands the article is about River Song--who only existed as portrayed by Alex Kingston. In other words, River Song is Melody Pond, but Melody Pond was not always River Song. The being we know as the Doctor, as far as we know him (Doctors 1-11), has always been The Doctor. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus as far as I can see to not include that information. You were the one removing it, you were reverted, per WP:BRD we are now discussing it. If you think there is consensus for your edits, please point us to it. "River Song" is just an alternate name for Melody Pond as established in "A Good Man goes to Man". Removing the information would contradict the current practice for example in Master (Doctor Who), Romana, Rassilon, etc. - all about characters who were portrayed by different actors but are established at being the same character. On the other hand, there is nothing that establishes that the Face of Boe is Jack Harkness, so the comparison fails. Also, those are two different articles, while both River Song and Melody Song are covered in this article. (Note: My comment above was originally posted to Erikeltic's talk page) Regards SoWhy 14:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that River Song did not exist until Melody Pond regenerated into the character portrayed by Alex Kingston. If you need further evidence, look at the episode credits; Mels, Young Mels, and River Song are separate. Furthermore, to list every minor incarnation is absurd. Case in point, Spock -- none of the people who portrayed the aging Spock in Star Trek III are listed in the infobox because their contributions were very minor. So agian, I see the whole Portrayed by as having two issues, the most important of which is that River Song did not exist until the being was portrayed by Alex Kingston. Like I wrote before, Jack Lloyd never portrayed Darth Vader either -- he only portrayed Anakin Skywalker, which is different. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Different names do not make different people. Melody Pond and River Song are one person. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise. If someone changes their name it doesn't make them a new person.Ratemonth (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

@Erikeltic: You do realize that your argument makes no sense? Our own article about Darth Vader lists Jack Lloyd in it's "Portrayals" section exactly because Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader are the same person. The same applies to the Master, Romana, Rassilon and of course River Song. I see no policy, guideline or consensus to handle it the way you propose and if you think there is, please show it to us. Regards SoWhy 16:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Anakin Skywalker redirects to the Darth Vader page as the article covers the entire character. Likewise this article covers River Song as well as Melody Pond. River Song is just her most well known name. Now on the other hand I could possibly understand not loading down the infobox with every single actress to play the character. The babies seem especially pointless. Perhaps a separate "Portrayals" section, like on the Darth Vader article, detailing each actress and which incarnation they play would be better? Leaving only Alex Kingston and a "see below" in the infobox. --DocNox (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate "Portrayals" section, like on the Darth Vader article, detailing each actress and which incarnation they play would be better? Leaving only Alex Kingston and a "see below" in the infobox. That works for me. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 17:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't see anyone trying to include Michael Jayston (who played the Valeyard) in the portrayed by section of The Doctor. Could this be that the incarnation of the Valeyard is seen as a wholly different character, despite being a "version" of the Doctor? In other words, the Valeyard might be the same being as the Dcotor, but he isn't the Doctor and something else entirely -- just like Melody Pond only became River Song after she regenerated into the character played by Alex Kingston. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 17:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jayston and the Valeyard are detailed in the Doctor article (in continuity curiosities), and he's right next to the Dream Lord in the Incarnations of the Doctor navbox. The point is all the actresses to portray Melody/River belong on this page somewhere and for now the infobox is the best place for them. --DocNox (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Valeyard is not the Doctor, he was a hypothetical version of the Doctor that "might exist around his twelfth and final incarnation". But on the other hand, we include all actors who portrayed the Doctor on TV in the infobox at Doctor (Doctor Who) - not just the last one. Also, you have now violated the three-revert rule by continuing to revert to your favorite version despite the discussion going on here. Please refrain from making further reverts or you will be blocked from editing, which will not be in anyone's interest. Regards SoWhy 17:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Valeyard is not the Doctor Right. And Melody Pond is not River Song, but River Song is a version of Melody that exists after she regenerates as Alex Kingston. Oh, and please--spare me from the "you will be blocked from editing" nonsense. We all know the rules, I think right? You're the only trying to include information/ make changes to an existing article, not I. Your man up above had a good suggestion, so I suggest we take it and call it a day. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 19:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No, River is Melody after regeneration, just like the Eleventh Doctor is the Doctor after regeneration from the Tenth Doctor. Just because she has a different name (which she doesn't even use in Let's Kill Hitler!) does not make her a different person. On the other hand, the Valeyard is explicitly stated not to be the Doctor. The comparison thus fails.
As for the rules, it looks as if you don't know them. Per WP:3RR you are not allowed to make the same revert more than thrice in a 24-hour-period, not even if you are correct or believe to be correct. That's the point of the rule. Please read up on it, otherwise yes, you will be blocked and I don't think that would be a good idea since we won't be able to discuss it anymore here. Regards SoWhy 21:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

River didn't exist before Alex Kingston played her (period). Melody Pond, although the same being was a different personality/person/character altogether. My comparison does not fail, quite the contrary. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 21:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm with SoWhy, DocNox and Ratemonth on this. Melody Pond/River Song are the same entity but with different faces. To not credit the actresses (and hence portrayals) playing the faces though with lesser (but still significant) screen time seems bonkers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"Who's River Song?" -Melody Pond, shortly after regenerating. That says it all. Look, I'm not opposed to listing the other actresses, but just not in the Portrayed by section of the infobox. That's absurd, as A) River Song didn't exist before regenerating into the form played by Alex Kingston, and B) the other actress' airtime/ contributions were terribly small compared to Alex Kingston. She is River Song. All of the others were incarnations of Melody Pond before she became River Song. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 21:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the Radio Times review says that "River" has been played so far by six people. Second, I know that the name "River Song" as well as her personality, but this article is about the character as a whole, who is still Melody Pond, just perfers going by a different name to become that person in the Doctor's future he keeps talking about. We list Caitlin Blackwood as portraying a young Amy, even though when she was that age she went by "Amelia" and her personality changed a little as she got older. I would go with putting all the names in the infobox. Glimmer721 ^talk 21:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Welp, this article just got ridiculous. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 22:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous argument. River Song = Melody Pond = Mels. It's all the same character. This article is about a character, not a particular phase of someone's personality where they happen to go by a particular nickname or alias. We don't have a separate article for Andrew Jackson for the period in his life when people called him "Old Hickory" with some kind of explanation explaining that he wasn't "Old Hickory" until after the Battle Of Whatever. Because that would be ridiculous. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 23:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I would suppose if "Old Hickory" had a completely different personality, only went by "Old Hickory" after becoming a woman that looks like Alex Kingston, and was a fictional character then your ridiculous statement would be apropos. Alex Kingston remains the only person to portray River Song, despite being one of several people to portray Melody Pond. As for your math, that's textbook WP:SYN. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." A = B and B = C, therefore A = C is pure synthesis. Find me one reliable and verifiable source that states all of the actresses currently littering the infobox were portraying River Song, not Melody Pond (aka Mels) who becomes River Song, but actually portraying River Song. One source. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 13:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this article. It's not about the persona "River Song" (like Eleventh Doctor) but the character Melody Pond/River Song (like Doctor (Doctor Who)). The article is meant to cover all incarnations of the character known as both Melody Pond and River Song, not just the one known as "River Song". The only reason this article is named "River Song" and not "Melody Pond" is WP:COMMONNAME. As for WP:SYN, it forbids only A + B = C, not A = B and B = C, thus A = C. If both A = B and B = C is reliably sourced, then saying A = C is not forbidden. For example, the Earth is a planet and a planet is a celestial body, thus the statement "The Earth is a celestial body" does not need sourcing because that statement does not "advance a position" as defined by WP:SYN. Regards SoWhy 14:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I bet you could find a reliable and verifiable source that would state "Earth is a celestial body", but I see no such source about River Song. The bottom line is that Alex Kingston is the only actress to every portray River Song and one of several to portray Melody Pond. It's kind of a moot point though, since consensus here seems to make this article on Wikipedia more like the TARDIS Index file on River Song; that doesn't make it the slightest bit better btw and is a wonderful example of why people often mock Wikipedia and its pseudo academic environment. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you really think we're missing sources to be able to reliably state in that article that Melody Pond = River Song and vice-versa, then you've really missed something. And if you have such a problem with the way WP works, then I'd suggest starting your own encyclopedia. It's a free internet, after all. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 19:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the fictional character created by Moffat and revelations surrounding it. It is not bound in by silly in-universe rules such as which regeneration she is. None of that is important to an encyclopedia; it's a discussion for a Wikia. The character's notability derives from the mysteries and contradictions and this would not be a very good article if it was severed and limited from proper discussion of all the many facets written into her.Zythe (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Been MIA for a couple of days, but to the person that changed the Portrayal section of the infobox -- thanks. Looks good. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 21:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem :) it was mostly aesthetic, and hopefully clarifies that Alex Kingston is the regular actress and the others are guest actors.Zythe (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"River didn't exist before Alex Kingston played her (period)." River's fictional and could exist only as a character in a book. Out of universe she doesn't exist; in universe she exists from the time she is conceived. The source is the show! The Doctor himself is still the Doctor through his various incarnations. The sentence "River Song is Amy's daughter" is true. I'm with Shubopshadangalang, GraemeLeggett and so on on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.46.132.194 (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Order of listing and Baby actors

I agree with listing the other actors in this manner (and as a side note should the same be done at Rose Tyler, Mickey Smith, Amy Pond and Rory Williams?), but have made a couple of changes. Firstly, I have re-ordered the portrayals to the order they appeared on-screen, rather than the young-to-old order from Melody's perspective. I think this version is less in-universe. Secondly, concerning the babies: they were not credited on-screen, and so I have added a citation needed tag. I can't remember if they were fully named in A Good Man's confidential episode, but if they were that would obviously be acceptable. However, considering they were not credited should we be listing them? To compare to Rose Tyler again, a baby played her in "Father's Day (Doctor Who)" and (if his/her name is know) it is not listed anywhere. I think they might perhaps warrant a quick mention in the article, but not in the infobox. U-Mos (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I know at least their first names were mentioned in the Confidential episode, but their mother was interviewed so that gave their last name. I've only seen parts of the Cut Down version. Not sure about baby Rose in "Father's Day" though I haven't investigated, but there was a young version of her credited for the flashback scene in that episde. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Listing baby actors who appeared for moments makes about as much as listing an actor's stunt double. It's utter nonsense. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 04:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed the baby actors. I am actually not a fan of including one-episode actors (e.g. Jack Montgomery played young Jack in one Torchwood episode) because frequently that fits better in the prose of Appearances if it's important, and if it's not then it doesn't bear mentioning. The only reason for it with River Song is because she's got multiple portrayals which is connected to her special significance/mystery. I don't think we should jump the gun and begin standardizing this trick. It's the worst habit of Wikipedians, to make sure that every field that could be in place and filled out is. You get it a lot with the Buffy articles, and it's frustrating - often infobox information is trivial.Zythe (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

So you're in favour of removing the younger portrayals from the infobox completely in all the article I linked to above (and I guess in Jack Harkness and Sarah Jane Smith as well)? I'd say it might be an idea to list them as "other protrayals" as well, as currently they're effectively listed equally to the main actors. U-Mos (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I know I am in favour of removing the entries entirely. Their presence is absurd and confuses the intent of the wiki. Here's a prime example -- you don't see the actors that played the rapidly aging Spock in the infobox. Axe them. Hell, I say axe all of them except Alex Kingston. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 12:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I am pro removing them altogether, because the infobox is of the same importance as the lead. The "other portrayals" field was a quick way of showing that they weren't really the starring actresses. But if they wouldn't make lead, they probably shouldn't make infobox. They could go down in a casting section, in a sentence, or mentioned parenthetically under TV appearances perhaps.Zythe (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, where I would be happy to accept that in all other cases, I'd say that Caitlin Blackwood should be mentioned in the infobox for her several appearances as Amelia (not to mention that she appeared before Karen Gillan). So how can we justify listing her and no other credited youngsters? Because she's appeared more than once? U-Mos (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That's usually the case. Recurring actors are usually more important than one-off actors. DonQuixote (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy with that. I'll remove the other actors from the infoboxes in the other articles. U-Mos (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with removing them. There is no policy, guideline or MoS page that says they should be omitted and it actually conflicts with the goal of an encyclopedia if relevant information is removed just because one or more people here feel it's "trivial" or "absurd". It's our job as editors to present relevant information in the article and it's the decision of the reader what they consider relevant or not relevant. For example, if I come here to find out who played a different version of a character, I'd like to find it in this article - not in the episode page (if exists) or somewhere else. If I don't care about those portrayals, I'll just skip that part. I think there is a good reason why none of the rules require such removals - we write for our readers, not experts in Doctor Who related topics, and we should consider what a reader who looks up the subject will expect to find. Regards SoWhy 18:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What if they were mentioned in the article but not the infobox? Currently I believe all but Rose Tyler and Rory Williams are. U-Mos (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the infobox is the better choice because that's the place where such information can be presented in a short and concise way without needing additional prose. Bit I'm happy with it being in the text instead, as long as it's listed somewhere. Regards SoWhy 18:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I say remove them. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 18:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

All are now mentioned in their article's text. U-Mos (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section is now atrociously in-universe. It reflects the character now that we know who she is; it does not reflect the character over the course of her appearances. The old version was a lot better. Should the fact that she is Melody Pond even be mentioned in the first paragraph? Thoughts?Zythe (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why should the fact that River goes by the names of Melody, Mels and whatever the little girl seen at the start of series 6 is called not be mentioned in the first paragraph? For me the first paragraph should be summerising the character telling the reader who the character is, and why she is important without saying spoliers, e.g. she kills the doctor, she loses her regeneration cycles to save the doctor. The second and third paragraphs in my mind should talk about the character development and important plot devices e.g. river and Dr going in opposite directions. also these paragraphs should be talking about which dr she is affiliated with. Also why do we have to bold Melody Pond in the lead??? For me that's a strange one. Just my reasons since I was BOLD, and no one until now has disagreed. Globalwheels (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the lead should summarize the character's most important aspects per WP:LEAD and that includes both names. After all, this article is about the character in all its incarnations, not just the first one (by appearance)/last one (internal chronology). As for bolding the name Melody in the lead, I think we should use the common format for such articles. For example, the FA Superman has both "Kal-El" and "Clark Kent" bold in the lead section. Regards SoWhy 14:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. In fact, I'd say most of the article has now achieved "crap" status. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 16:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Boldening of alternate names is common practice per MOS:BOLDTITLE (particulary importnat when redirects are involved). I would draw the line before adding "Mels" though since that is just a short form of Melody. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Superman and Clark Kent have been portrayed as two sides of the same coin for decades; it's not analogous. The River Song article from a real world perspective ought to be more immediately concerned with the presentation of the character then her recently-revealed fictional bio and explanation (i.e. her role in the series and how the mystery surrounding her was gradually revealed). At the moment, she's being presented as having been this character for the whole time. It suits the kind of crappy article that indulges in a "fictional biography" from the character's perspective.Zythe (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've cut the bit about her origins down [3], this is all deal with discussing "Let's Kill Hitler" and the lead summarizes. Please note plot needs to be in the current tense. I put in the bit about her saving the Doctor; I think this and the relationship with Amy and Rory has something important to say about her character. Edgepedia (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes! I've just done a new version which I hope indulges less in in-universe terms, attempting to gloss what all the key terms mean (companion, TARDIS, the Doctor, regeneration, etc.) so that it's accessible to non-fans. The first paragraph gives an overview of character-as-concept over time. The second paragraph, anchored by a quote from Davies about her in-universe significance, has a bit of plot recap, and attempts to relate this to real-world factors (such as the actors involved, etc.). It shouldn't ever read like this is a character who was introduced as a half-Time Lady in Doctor Who. It should reflect the changes behind the scenes (executive producer, Kingston in her recurring role) and the audience's slow realisation as to who River Song is. A third paragraph dealing with Reception and so on could further, helpfully, discuss the portrayals of other incarnations of Melody Pond, but it would have to anchor itself around further real-world bits of information.Zythe (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Initial thought - don't you think "falls in love" is a bit strong? Perhaps a comment that she saves his life is better? Edgepedia (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps! It was just plot summary shorthand. 'Saves his life' is a good non-loaded edit to make. Any discussion of the romantic element is probably a good thing for the hypothetical third paragraph (where Time Traveller's Wife comparisons can get some prose room, too).Zythe (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps on the line sharing Time lord genetics with the Dr, such as regeneration should be added. Since these things which are Time Lord traits haven't been proved although hinted ability to read/write native language, and infinate amounts of knowledge/brain power and 2 hearts. But it looks a lot better even to what was there before I swang at it. P.S. I also agree change save life instead of love. As although hinted flirted at etc, it's still not confirmed. Globalwheels (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

My only thought is that all that stuff is only important inside the logic of the show. The lead should be fully accessible and informative for someone who's never even heard of Doctor Who; strange concepts like that should be glossed, and the more words you have to spend writing something the less you can justify its immediate relevance.Zythe (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Latest DW Confidential and River Song's chronology (from her POV)

The latest Confidential from "The Wedding of River Song" clearly established the order that River "experiences" her life in, and thus probably should be referenced. But I think what would be helpful to non-fandom readers is to create a simple user-made chart where we can plot River's timeline counter to the Doctor's timeline (with the persumption that the Doctor's timeline is in the order of the episodes that we see them in). I've seen this done prior to Series 6 in the fashion of a London Underground map, colored paths connecting the episodes. This would help emphasis the complexity of her story without introducing OR (since we have this one, single source to work from and we're not synthesizing anything). --MASEM (t) 17:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Useful certainly but I'm wary whether this really won't violate WP:SYN. I've seen Confidential as well but I don't think it allows us to create a map like that. I would wait until some reliable source creates a clear timeline we can use as a source. Regards SoWhy 18:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. There's nothing about taking published information and placing them into visual form that advances a position or implies a conclusion, and it's not WP:SYN especially if the info is from one source. What's proposed above (unless there's an unspoken ulterior motive) is simply a matter of presenting information. If, however, such a graphic were to fill in details from the creator's own assumptions or interpretation of that info, that would be an issue of WP:OR. But it would be a matter of reviewing the results to determine whether or not that was the case (and even then, fixing it may be a matter of small adjustments, not throwing out the graphic entirely).—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 19:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I see a number of problems with a graphic. The story as presented by River in that episode seems incomplete; for example Alex Kingston was asking when did River find out his name? What happened between the child in Impossible Astronaut regenerating in 1969 and Mel in Let's Kill Hilter, who seems far too young? The point I'm making here is that a diagram with solid lines is going to be invalided by any future episode with River appearing, or the character being referenced. My second point is that is River a reliable source? During the telling of her story it is clear that on a number of occansions she withheld information. There's far too much plot on the page at the moment, and I'm with Moffet in that River's story is really quite simple and we should be able to describe it in a paragraph. Edgepedia (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Diagram would just encourage fans to edit this page like a biography and make it infinitely more cluttered and ugly. The storyline isn't so confusing that a real-world summary doesn't tell the story effectively.Zythe (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I aggree with Zythe on this one. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 11:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I personally think that some type of visual aid would be very helpful under this circumstance. I have been watching this show since her character was introduced and have had a very difficult time following her character progression. I recently purchased the new Doctor Who Encyclopedia (ISBN 978184990231) written by one of the show's writers which spells out River Song's timeline perfectly, however, I still found myself coming to this article expecting there to be a visual aid plotting the two time streams against each other to help me understand even further. I was disappointed when this wasn't the case. I think this Encyclopedia would prove a perfect source for something like this and I would be happy to help compile the information if others agree. Austin de Rossi (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Section on River Song chronology

This edit [4] removed a chronology of River song w.r.t. the episodes, noting it as original research. I agree without a source it is, but I am 99% that a series of videos made by Song's actor published by the BBC establish her chronology relative to the Doctor's. There's also several sites (not super reliable, but certainly reliable in sci-fi entertainment reporting) that have tried to make sense of River's progress.

I'd have to go looking for those videos, but I wouldn't dismiss this list so fast as OR. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd consider those other sites to be fairly OR as well, but if you can find Kingston talking about the chronology in a BBC interview, that would be a good source to include. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I remember seeing, it's from the DW Confidential for the latest series finale. [5]. While it's io9, it's pointing to the info in the Confidential, and reiterates it. So both could be used. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed at places such as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Archive_24#File:River_Song_timeline.jpg and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Archive_23#River_Song_template, where the consensus has been for removal. As before there are the appearances that she didn't mention in the source, so I've tagged those. Also I have an issue that you're relying, for the most part, on the account of an unreliable character and it has been indicated that she will mislead and withhold information as spoilers.. I've tagged the article accordingly. Edgepedia (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

However, it could be written as plot, only mentioning the appearences discribed and attributing it to the source.Edgepedia (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that this a Confidential, despite it being narrated as Song, the source is reliable (since it's made by the show creators) as to reiterate plot. We can't interpolate between "missing" episodes, that's certain. I would also argue that there are sources that give credence to discuss the complex nature of Song's timeline within the source (not as source for the time line itself, but just the nature of it). --MASEM (t) 06:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no difference; It's narrated in the first person so it's as reliable as any dialogue. Edgepedia (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Frogkermit (talk) this is the section i created but people keep messing with it. doctor who confidental is a completely reliable source as the timeline is said by alex kingston, who plays river song, and no doubt what she had to say was WRITTEN BY STEVEN MOFFAT, and even if not by a member of the production team, who would know this as they MAKE THE SHOW! has nobody thought of this??????????!!!!!!!!!! (Frogkermit (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC))

Frogkermit (talk) please do not rewrite my work as it was perfectly acceptable for the purporse and as i am the one who created the whole section in the first place (Frogkermit (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC))

Please remember that wikipedia is a collaborative effort and "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." DonQuixote (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Frogkermit (talk) then you will not mind me changing it back. (Frogkermit (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC))

There is no "Chronological order" beyond the unfolding of the narrative. River Song is a concept not a person and she does not have a perspective or a point of view. It is irrelevant for a general content encyclopedia to pretend she has one. It confuses the whole issue to suggeststhat the circumstances of her birth were a given fact before her first appearance, when although Steven Moffat may have a vague plan he does make a fair amount of the story up as he goes along. If you want to see things from a fictional perspective of the character, TARDIS wiki is very comprehensive and is linked to in the External links section.Eshlare (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The one thing I would consider here - and it would take time to locate sources - is that there is some fascination with the character's reverse chronology with the Doctor. Yes, the fact her appearances are pretty much the reverse of the Doctor's is clear in the existing text, but I'm talking about that as a narrative element and not as (necessarily) a facet of the character. This is not to say the way it was currently presented is 100% the best way, but there is likely something to say focused on the chronology. We don't need to go into so great exacting detail but there are enough sources to talk about this. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

For that I think we should wait until someone does a literary/cultural analysis. Otherwise it's just DW Confidential and the various transcripts that are floating around (io9 etc). DonQuixote (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The comparisons with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Time Traveller's Wife seem sufficient for now. The nitty-gritty details of where in eaches respective timeline the adventures take place is more a subject of forum discussion than a cultural phenomenom. (Until of course, more sources appear). Eshlare (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Real name in infobox

In the infobox, there's an edit dispute re: the "real name" field ... if it should only show "River Song", or if it should show "Melody Pond/River Song". Both are the characters "real name" - the character was born as Melody Pond, and later as an adult became known as River Song. As both are the characters real name, it's sensible to me to show both in this field. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Unlike real people, characters don't have birth names in the real world. Fictional characters have names that they are known by with regards to audiences and the general public. It is general practise for the more recognised name to be on the title bar of infoboxes (see Superman, The Shadow, etc.). DonQuixote (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Both in universe and outside, the names Melody Pond and River Song are used according to context. We don't need to artificially constrain the article to using a single name. --TS 16:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The examples you use both include "Alter ego" areas in their infoboxes that lists what could best be described as thier "birth names" (granted not listed as such, and granted not in the main infobox label field). Using the examples you provide as guides, it suggests that you are recommending that the {{Infobox Doctor Who character}} needs to be modified to allow a field for alternate legitimate names of the characters. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Both names are used within the article and within context. The infobox title is for the most common name of a fictional character. If you feel that her other fictional name should be included in the infobox, then feel free to modify the infobox parameters as suggested above. DonQuixote (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I was out most of the weekend, so just saw the reply. I'll start a discussion when I have time later today at template talk:Infobox Doctor Who character to discuss the option (and best wording) to have a section for alternate names the characters have been known under. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Don Quixote. The name in the infobox is the equivalent of the first sentence of the lead section, so must be careful to strictly represent the character by its popular/definitive name.Zythe (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Don Quixote's Superman example (above) demonstrates why both names should appear. The Superman article names him as Kal-El/Clark Kent, both his birth name and the name he uses most of his life. There is no "present" in this situation. She is Melody just as much as she is River. She apparently goes by Melody for much more of her life than she goes by River. Dr.Who (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Superman and River aren't real people. They don't have "lives", and they don't "use" names. They have fictional names that they are known by. To most people Superman is known as "Superman" and River is known as "River". The other names such as "Kal El" and "Melody Pond" are alternative names for those fictional characters. DonQuixote (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps the Superman article should be changed - although wasn't there a set of stories about Kal-El sometime ago? However, at the moment the character has appeared as 'River Song' in eleven episodes, as 'Mel' for part of one and her appearances as 'Melody Pond' have been minor. Speculation about the character's back story - which could easily be changed in a currently unwritten story - is speculation. Edgepedia (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Melody Malone in infobox

Rather than just remove it, I should ask: as this is a non-defining alias, and trivial (appears in one episode), should we be bothering to include it in the infobox where it presently receives undue weight? Whereas Melody Pond is a fairly critically important alias, is this?Zythe (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought Melody Malone was Amy's pen name, rather than River's... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

River writes the book. Amy just publishes it. Ωphois 22:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Completely OR, but in the context of Angels Take Manhattan Melody Malone seemed like nothing more than a cross between a derivative of River's birth name and an affectionate shout-out. The e-book from the perspective of Melody Malone may give the alias added significance. Anyone read it? Eshlare (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Angels Take Manhattan

River Song was a companion in this episode, but the infobox at the bottom only lists Amy and Rory. Can somebody fix that? 214.27.58.2 (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, IP, there's an (old) discussion at Talk:The Angels Take Manhattan#River as Companion on this subject. Edgepedia (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Susan's grandmother?

Just how much out of sequence are the Doctor and River? Is she supposed to be Susan's grandmother? 173.190.143.166 (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a stretch. How likely is it the Doctor knew his own granddaughter but has spent most of 1200 years unaware of who mothered his own children? Might as well ask if Jenny is Susan's mother (Oh, I've said too much.) ZarhanFastfire (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

List of appearances

The character of river song, as portrayed by alex kingston, has actually appeared in TWELVE episodes, not eleven;

• 1. silence in the libary
• 2. the forest of the dead
• 3. the time of angels
• 4. flesh and stone
• 5. the pandorica opens
• 6. the big bang
• 7. the impossible astronaut
• 8. day of the moon
• 9. a good man goes to war
• 10. let's kill hitler
• 11. Closing time (although it was a cameo, it was still a piece of new material never seen before and of about 5 minuites in length so technically it still counts as a river song episode)
• 12. the wedding of river song

just to clarrify Frogkermit (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And the mini-episodes (First Night / Last Night)? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Horrible spoilers - backwards article

Subsequent to posting the following rant, I went over the page's history, and it seems I'm not the first to complain about spoilers. I have allowed the information to remain in the article, IN IT'S APPROPRIATE PLACE. I've removed the spoilers from the header, but I believe that the information still exists in sections further down the page. The following rant will explain why this is the *right* way to lay out the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.72.142 (talk) 06:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

As a new watcher of Doctor Who, I'm only just beginning series 6. I'm massively careful about how I look for information online so as to avoid spoilers. But this article threw the spoilers in my face.

I came to this page simply to find out when River Song's character first appeared (because I only joined the series in the last few episodes of the Tenth Doctor's reign). I thought going straight to River's page would get me the information I needed as quickly as possible, without stumbling onto any information that might tip episodes that I haven't yet seen. In fact, the last episode I saw was 6.2, which left me with the tantalizing and wonderous mystery of the little girl - who is she, and why does she seem to be regenerating?! Alas, the first thing I see on River Song's page is the colourful box declaring "Also known as Melody Pond". Hmm... And if that wasn't enough of a giveaway (which it was), the introductory paragraph spills all the beans about River's parentage, removing all the mystery for good. Looks like I've just ruined the next season and a half of the show.

I'm all for compiling the world's greatest knowledge base. But can we do it with a bit of tact? I'm not going to be the only person in the world catching up on this show a few years late. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.72.142 (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written from a real world perspective and as such years-old information is presented as-is. Also, see WP:SPOILER. DonQuixote (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're the kind of person who enjoys not knowing stuff, an encyclopedia is your worst nightmare. Our mission is antagonistic to your wishes. --TS 09:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Very well. I have now read the pages on spoilers and lead sections. Although I still question the validity of the level of detail in the lead section, I will withdraw from this debate. Thank you Don Quixote for your courteous response. Thank you Tony Sidaway for your unyielding efforts to compile the world's most comprehensive knowledge base. 220.239.72.142 (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Spoilers

Someone has posted spoilers from the series 7 finale. In the article. Just thought you should know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.112.117 (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a spoilers tag?173.58.47.102 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read Why we don't have spoiler alerts. My personal opinion is that Wiki is an encyclopedia, and as such it contains information. If you know there is something you don't want spoiled then don't read up on it.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

strōm

Apparently, in Old Norse, "strōm" means both "river" and "song".[6] Is this a coincidence? -- Beland (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably. At any rate, unless the connection is discussed in a reliable source, it doesn't belong in this article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

What about the mini episodes?

What about the mini episodes at

Night and the Doctor?

— Cirt (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see it's mentioned, albeit briefly, okay. — Cirt (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ref "check date values" error message?

I added the name of two actors, with a supporting news cite. In the references section, I see this:

Lewis, Paul (06 June 2011). "Dr Who fans see double as Baglan Moors twins get starring roles". South Wales Evening Post. Local World. Retrieved 17 August 2015. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

I looked at the help page, rechecked the dates, entered it through the template again, with the same results.

Wikipedia is perfectly happy if I remove the "|date=06 June 2011" element, thusly:

Lewis, Paul. "Dr Who fans see double as Baglan Moors twins get starring roles". South Wales Evening Post. Local World. Retrieved 17 August 2015.

The text inside the original cite is:

cite news|last1=Lewis|first1=Paul|title=Dr Who fans see double as Baglan Moors twins get starring roles|url=http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Dr-fans-double-Baglan-Moors-twins-starring-roles/story-12717666-detail/story.html%7Cwork=South Wales Evening Post|publisher=Local World|accessdate=17 August 2015|date=06 June 2011

Why? /Bruce/ [aka Slasher] 23:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

River's abilities

Anyone else catch when River first changes clothes on the cruise ship and she says "Not bad for two hundred"? This implies that she has an extended life span, probabaly due to her being part Time Lord. It's well established that Time Lords have long lives, even apart from regeneration -- just look at "The Time of the Doctor" for proof -- and even though River can't regenerate any more, she still has the Gallifreyan life span. Ooznoz (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Ooznoz