Talk:River Song (Doctor Who)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)