This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
River Song (Doctor Who) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 300 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 300 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Other than the statement made by Moffat that Song is bisexual, is there anything in the Doctor Who canon that substantiates this? — Loadmaster ( talk) 22:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
M Why the character's name Melody Pond and not Melody Williams or Melody Pond Williams? Why has her father been castrated when it comes to her surname?-- 75.130.91.73 ( talk) 12:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Since we mention that six actors have portrayed River without naming them, here they are: Alex Kingston, Harrison and Madison Mortimer (who play the newborn baby), Sydney Wade, Maya Glace-Green (plays the young version of 'Mels', the character played by Nina Toussaint-White), Nina Toussaint-White. The source is https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/River_Song. I can't speak for its validity. Renard Migrant ( talk) 19:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC). Edited to correct link 19:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC).
River Song's premise in out of sequence interactions with a time traveller husband seems to be right out of The Time Traveller's Wife -- 64.229.88.43 ( talk) 23:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Susan Foreman was previously listed as "Step Granddaughter". Another editor removed it under the argument that they're "not real people" and that the characters have "never met". Obviously we're talking about fictional characters here, but I fail to understand how whether or not they met is relevant. Seeking a better rationale for removal. The granddaughter of a character's spouse is their step granddaughter. Is this obvious fact somehow too big a leap? — Shada Ng ( talk | contribs) 16:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
— Shada Ng ( talk | contribs) 15:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)"If you want to compile a family tree, there's always Tardis wiki."
— User:DonQuixote
Per WP:WAF, don't write a fictography. Unless it's a plot point or a defining characteristic (ie significant coverage in reliable secondary sources), it's not important for an encyclopaedia. If you want to compile a family tree, there's always Tardis wiki.DonQuixote ( talk) 15:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
When creating these articles, editors should establish the subject's real-world notability by including several reliable, independent secondary sources...As such, the subject should be described from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction (work for short) and its publication are embedded. To achieve this, editors must use both primary and secondary information...Real-world perspective is not an optional criterion for quality, but rather a basic requirement for all articles...Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take [an in-universe] approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles...Features often seen in an inappropriate, in-universe perspective include:... Fictography – a character description that is written like a biography, placing undue emphasis on fictional traits (titles, birthdates, etc.) that are unimportant to the plot or interpretation thereof.
Real-world perspective is not an optional criterion for quality, but rather a basic requirement for all articles.DonQuixote ( talk) 23:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
unimportant to the plot or interpretation thereofand unimportant to the character from a MOS:REALWORLD perspective (ie, it's just fictography details). Nowhere in any episode is it ever mentioned. No WP:SECONDARY source is talking about it. If it's unimportant to the WP:PRIMARY source and it's unimportant to the real-world intepretation of the characters, then it's unimportant to a general encyclopaedia. Nothing will be lost if it's not mentioned here. Seriously, it's even less important than the Doctor's university nickname--at least that got mentioned three times in the primary source and secondary sources mention it from time to time.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
River Song (Doctor Who) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 300 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 300 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Other than the statement made by Moffat that Song is bisexual, is there anything in the Doctor Who canon that substantiates this? — Loadmaster ( talk) 22:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
M Why the character's name Melody Pond and not Melody Williams or Melody Pond Williams? Why has her father been castrated when it comes to her surname?-- 75.130.91.73 ( talk) 12:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Since we mention that six actors have portrayed River without naming them, here they are: Alex Kingston, Harrison and Madison Mortimer (who play the newborn baby), Sydney Wade, Maya Glace-Green (plays the young version of 'Mels', the character played by Nina Toussaint-White), Nina Toussaint-White. The source is https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/River_Song. I can't speak for its validity. Renard Migrant ( talk) 19:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC). Edited to correct link 19:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC).
River Song's premise in out of sequence interactions with a time traveller husband seems to be right out of The Time Traveller's Wife -- 64.229.88.43 ( talk) 23:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Susan Foreman was previously listed as "Step Granddaughter". Another editor removed it under the argument that they're "not real people" and that the characters have "never met". Obviously we're talking about fictional characters here, but I fail to understand how whether or not they met is relevant. Seeking a better rationale for removal. The granddaughter of a character's spouse is their step granddaughter. Is this obvious fact somehow too big a leap? — Shada Ng ( talk | contribs) 16:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
— Shada Ng ( talk | contribs) 15:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)"If you want to compile a family tree, there's always Tardis wiki."
— User:DonQuixote
Per WP:WAF, don't write a fictography. Unless it's a plot point or a defining characteristic (ie significant coverage in reliable secondary sources), it's not important for an encyclopaedia. If you want to compile a family tree, there's always Tardis wiki.DonQuixote ( talk) 15:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
When creating these articles, editors should establish the subject's real-world notability by including several reliable, independent secondary sources...As such, the subject should be described from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction (work for short) and its publication are embedded. To achieve this, editors must use both primary and secondary information...Real-world perspective is not an optional criterion for quality, but rather a basic requirement for all articles...Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take [an in-universe] approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles...Features often seen in an inappropriate, in-universe perspective include:... Fictography – a character description that is written like a biography, placing undue emphasis on fictional traits (titles, birthdates, etc.) that are unimportant to the plot or interpretation thereof.
Real-world perspective is not an optional criterion for quality, but rather a basic requirement for all articles.DonQuixote ( talk) 23:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
unimportant to the plot or interpretation thereofand unimportant to the character from a MOS:REALWORLD perspective (ie, it's just fictography details). Nowhere in any episode is it ever mentioned. No WP:SECONDARY source is talking about it. If it's unimportant to the WP:PRIMARY source and it's unimportant to the real-world intepretation of the characters, then it's unimportant to a general encyclopaedia. Nothing will be lost if it's not mentioned here. Seriously, it's even less important than the Doctor's university nickname--at least that got mentioned three times in the primary source and secondary sources mention it from time to time.