![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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...
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)
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)
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 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)
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
It suggests in the bio that she is also a time traveller. Is this correct?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 say remove them. Erikeltic ( Talk) 18:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
Frogkermit ( talk) then you will not mind me changing it back. ( Frogkermit ( talk) 21:30, 13 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The character of river song, as portrayed by alex kingston, has actually appeared in TWELVE episodes, not eleven;
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)
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)
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)
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)
Apparently, in Old Norse, "strōm" means both "river" and "song". [6] Is this a coincidence? -- Beland ( talk) 17:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
What about the mini episodes at
— Cirt ( talk) 03:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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...
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)
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)
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 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)
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
It suggests in the bio that she is also a time traveller. Is this correct?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 say remove them. Erikeltic ( Talk) 18:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
Frogkermit ( talk) then you will not mind me changing it back. ( Frogkermit ( talk) 21:30, 13 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The character of river song, as portrayed by alex kingston, has actually appeared in TWELVE episodes, not eleven;
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)
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)
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)
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)
Apparently, in Old Norse, "strōm" means both "river" and "song". [6] Is this a coincidence? -- Beland ( talk) 17:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
What about the mini episodes at
— Cirt ( talk) 03:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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