Talk:River Song (Doctor Who)

Orientation

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)

Not really. The only allusion to River's 'open mindedness' is a remark she makes about an auton, which is a typical "Captain Jack" type of joke.Zythe (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

So then we should change the Category:Fictional bisexual females to Category:Fictional females, then, right? — Loadmaster (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

We have the quote from the creator, and the category is a useful way of linking together these articles which variously describe representations and attempted representations of bisexual women in fiction. Imo it's a matter of interest that some of these characters have been given explicit scenes to show their orientations and some haven't, despite the protestations of their creators (Xena falls into this category as well). Thankfully, Wikipedia doesn't have to care whether River is "canonically" "really" bisexual, or about the differences between a writer's intent and possible interpretations of his work. It only cares about sources, and a creator who is the character's primary writer is a fairly authoritative one. (I also wouldn't include anyone in Category:Fictional females anyway; only its subcategories, really.)Zythe (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There's also her comment in "Silence in the Library" that Lux was the only member of the team she was in that she didn't fancy, which is why she had him keep his helmet on. So she did fancy Other Dave, Proper Dave, Anita and Miss Evangelista. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This interpretation relies on a specific connotation of the word "fancy", i.e., "sexually attracted to". Perhaps she simply meant "like"? To label her with a specific orientation, I'd prefer more canonical and less ambiguous references to back it up. — Loadmaster (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That's the primary meaning in British English. But let's not talk about interpretation or other original research. "Canonical" status, too, is immaterial.Zythe (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Since Dec 25th 2015 her bisexuality is canon. The twelfth Doctor reminds her of her second wife. Judith Sunrise (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2016 (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)

Because that's what the writer said. He bent over backwards to get the river/pond allusion. DonQuixote (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The six actors

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).

Piggy backing this comment for anyone who is going to edit this section: I think the way it's currently written (a vague "other actresses have gone on to play other incarnations" or something along those lines) is misleading as it tacitly implies that they play her it at least a couple of episodes. The other incarnation that we actually saw on-screen the most was in Let's Kill Hitler, for a grand total of one episodes. The times she is seen in Day of the Moon as a young girl are very minor roles, as is the part where she appears as a baby in A Good Man Goes to War. So I would suggest rewriting this sentence to reflect that the Alex Kingston incarnation is the one we have seen in all 15 episodes the character appears in (and with a major role in almost every one, nonetheless) Anditres (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The Time Traveler's Wife

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)

River Song's relatives including Susan?

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)

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) 16:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't make the choice to include "Relatives" in the infobox, but it's there. Perhaps you take issue with that, but a "family tree" is to some degree what we have already. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:WAF, particularly MOS:REALWORLD and MOS:INUNIVERSE. DonQuixote (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You've mentioned that previously, see above, but yes I've read that, thanks. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 22:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Then you should understand that in-universe trivia is discouraged. If reliable sources aren't talking about it, then there's nothing for Wikipedia to summarise per MOS:REALWORLD--it's not even mentioned by the primary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Seriously, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means that it's a summary of previously published materials. If secondary sources are talking about it, such as Digital Spy and Radio Times or if it's a plot point in the primary source (A Good Man Goes to War), then it can be mentioned in an encyclopaedia article. If no one is talking about it, then it's trivia. Again, per WP:WAF, don't write a fictography here--just summarise what the reliable sources are stating. If you want to write in an MOS:INUNIVERSE style, there's always tardis wiki. There's an appropriate place for things. Here it's MOS:REALWORLD. DonQuixote (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Read:

"If you want to compile a family tree, there's always Tardis wiki."
— User:DonQuixote

—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Reading comprehension. Learn it.

Full quote from above, 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)

Read: WP:CIVIL, WP:HTBC and WP:PA. Every one of us has more to learn. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 19:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

But, back to the topic, I disagree with your conclusions. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 19:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

From WP:WAF: 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.

Look, Wikipedia has limitations. It's a summary of previously published materials. It's not the end-all of all knowledge. Things that can't be included here for one reason or another can be mentioned elsewhere, such as fan wikis. If you want to write an encyclopaedia in a MOS:REALWORLD style, then this is the place to do so. If you want to mention every MOS:INUNIVERSE detail, then there's tardis wiki or equilvalents. There's no such thing as the "better" site--there's just sites with different objectives. DonQuixote (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Alrighty then. So, as for THIS site, let's see if there are other voices - including the user who originally added the detail we're discussing - who care to weigh in on this issue. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 14:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Or...you can do what I did above and find reliable sources to show that it's a plot point and/or to show that reliable secondary sources are talking about it. That would be more productive. DonQuixote (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

What would be *productive* is to simply let the obvious fact of the familial connection between two well-established, well-sourced characters whose shared connection to the main character is also well-established and well-sourced remain in the article as added by 92.13.83.6 (who I'd still like to see at least chime in here). The fact that the granddaughter of one character's husband is their step-granddaughter does not require additional sources, silly rationales (you are no less related to your relatives whether or not you have *met* them) or lengthy explanations about tangential topics such as a repeated pitch for contributing to fan sites such as the TARDIS Wiki. But again, let's hear from others. We've heard enough about what you and I (mostly you) think, already. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 22:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The fact that you can't or won't find reliable sources--not even the primary source--is indicative of how MOS:INUNIVERSE this is. Per WP:WAF, 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)

It seems like maybe you want this to be more narrowly specific, but "relatives" is what we have in the infobox template, which is described simply as "The characters's relatives" (and falls under the heading of "In-universe information" by the way, in case you missed that). Perhaps you'd like to propose the addition of "relatives who have met" to that? Anyway, other than being tempted to add "1+2=3" to the article just to see if you would mark it as unsourced, I have nothing further to add here. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Seriously--MOS:REALWORLD. If reliable sources aren't talking about it, then it's unimportant to the plot or interpretation thereof and 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.

Bottom line: Wikipedia is a summary of previously published materials (ie MOS:REALWORLD), whilst tardis wiki is a fictography (ie MOS:INUNIVERSE). What you're trying to do is fictography. There's appropriate places where you can indulge in that to your hearts content. We're trying to summarise reliable sources here, which has its limitations. Again, there's no "better" website--just sites with different objectives. DonQuixote (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Re: your addendum.

If reliable sources are talking about it, then it's written from a MOS:REALWORLD perspective. Amy and Rory being River's parents are literally plot points in A Good Man Goes to War, Let's Kill Hitler and The Wedding of River Song. Also, Digital Spy and Radio Times mention it when they discuss the character of River Song (as previously cited above). Notice that they don't mention Susan at all. Seriously, 'summary of previously published materials' vs 'fictography'. DonQuixote (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not even going to waste my time reading another of your diatribes on this. Whatever you said above, just consider yourself right or whatever. I'll even make you a trophy if you'll just please stop talking. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 19:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll give you a trophy if you start providing reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)