Talk:The Wedding of River Song

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Wedding of River Song has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starThe Wedding of River Song is part of the Doctor Who (Series 6) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 31, 2012Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2024Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Grammar[edit]

"but he is left keenly aware that the moment when the Question of the Silence will be asked; "Doctor Who?"" I´m sorry, but to me that sentence doesn`t make sense. Can someon clarify? 101090ABC (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content[edit]

"and that the order of the Silence, chose Lake Silencio in Utah as his place of his death" - I thought they said it was (something along the lines of) a 'quiet place/point' which made it easier to generate a fixed point in time?

A "still point in time," I think it was - not that we know what that is. 109.156.208.18 (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something for the continuity section...[edit]

The Silence call Rory the man that keeps on dying, referring to his apparent deaths in Amy's Choice, Cold Blood, Day of the Moon, The Curse of the Black Spot, and The Doctor's Wife. Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is interesting, as only a time traveler would be able to know of those things, Amy wasn't the flesh in most of those events, as I recall.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Silence (species) are telepathic beings, they can read minds, as shown in The Impossible Astronaut when one of them kills a woman and then informs Amy that she was called Joy. 86.138.35.215 (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^^^ I don't think that's necessarily established incontrovertibly. Since nobody remembers seeing them, the Silence could have easily just been hanging around somewhere and overheard her name with no-one realizing it. Doesn't necessarily mean they're telepathic. Lvsxy808 (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason people forget them is because they're telepathic. Mind control etc. I know there is no real source for this, but I think Moffat realised we were all bored of hearing pseudoscientific words like 'telepathic' and just assumed we would know that some aliens could do that by now. It has never been stated in the New Series that the Doctor and other Time Lords are telepathic, I don't think, but we have made that assumption. Plus, this is more forum material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.201.85 (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding part[edit]

That part isn't trivial and editors here keep getting confused and attaching the wrong reasons behind it when they edit this article.
Here's what happened: They got married -> River is now "family" with the Doctor -> As we saw in Let's Kill Hitler, only family gets access to confidential data -> the device allows the Doctor inside to tell River that he's actually a tiny Doctor inside a device (that he already made a workaround to escape death). That's why they got married, so she'll know that she won't be killing him if she reverts time back to the way it's supposed to be.
Unless I am wrong, too :) ailaG (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, no one knew that the Doctor and River were married, so the Teselacts wouldn't have used this reason. DonQuixote (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Teselacts knew, they were witnesses (AFAIK one can't operate this thing on his own). Either way, there's no grounds to the claim made on this article, that the wedding was done "to alleviate her pain", seems more like a guess or a conjecture. ailaG (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, misread your comment there. Anyway, the family bit was only for confidential data. There's nothing in the episode that says that only family can look through a physical eye-hole. DonQuixote (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But for the machine to tell her to look (therefore exposing confidential data) the machine would require sufficient permissions. Why else would he spontaneously marry her, of all things? I mean, that marriage scene is cute and all, but when's the last time you were in a critical situation and said "oh, I know, I'll marry somoene!" :) IF he could've told her to look into his eye without all that drama, he'd just do it.
("Oh hello River-of-this-reality! Let's resume the flow of the time stream!" "But I don't want to kill you!" "Look into my eye" "Oh, alrighty then" would cut around 20 minutes off the episode :P ) ailaG (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's your interpretation. If you can find a secondary source that mentions something similar, then feel free to cite it. Another interpretation might be the Doctor saying, "Now that you're my wife, please do as I ask (in front of these witnesses)" (paraphrasing). DonQuixote (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Emperor or Holy Roman Emperor?[edit]

Would you please check if Winston Churchill is shown (during the time confusion) as Roman Emperor, i.e. emperor of the Roman Empire during imperial times, beginning in 27 B.C., or as Holy Roman Emperor, i.e. emperor of the Holy Roman Empire founded in 800 B.C. by Charlemagne. The facts that Churchill is called "Ceasar", and that we see flags with the inscription "SPQR" in front of his palace IMHO are significant indications that it's the former. Sebastian Klein (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She says "Holy Roman Emperor". DonQuixote (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And aside from that, in this episode above all there is no point appealing to real history. Barsoomian (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rondo Haxton[edit]

Should there be a redirect made to this article or Mark Gatiss himself when someone searches for that on Wikpedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.53.26 (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment?[edit]

I have just added this article to the BBC wikiproject. However the assessment of the page by the other projects seems odd and suggests that the assessment is out of date. This article is too complete for a start class. Rafmarham (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Wedding of River Song/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 20:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good generally. A few nit-picks and minor points to sort out, but nothing major and feel free to argue on any of the points. I also did some minor copy-editing, but just revert anything you are not happy with. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "It was written by showrunner Steven Moffat": Is there a better description of Moffat than the rather informal "showrunner". Lead writer? Executive producer?
  • "to escape his supposed death at the hands of the Silence": Not too sure that "supposed" covers this. To all intents and purposes, he was killed, and not by the Silence either. What about just plain "death", or perhaps "apparent death" would work better.
    • Changed to "apparent death". He was never killed; it was always the Teselecta. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where all of time is running at once and collapsing": A bit vague. And "simultaneously" would be better than "at once". What about "which is causing its collapse".
    • Reworded. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I put back "collapsed", as "deteriorate" is slightly vague, particularly for a casual reader. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With his escape plan figured out": I think this could be cut, and maybe just add how his escape is revealed at the end of the episode.
  • ""The Wedding of River Song" concludes the arc of the series": A bit ambiguous; what about "the story arc of the series". However, you have two "series" in one sentence at the moment.
  • "It also pays tribute to the classic series character Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart, who is said to have died, due to the death of actor Nicholas Courtney the preceding February": Too much going on here. Perhaps cut "the preceding February" for a start. And does the episode pay tribute simply by having the Brig die?
    • Cut out some. I think the specifics are better in the body of the article. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and received positive to mixed reviews from critics": I'm not a fan of this phrasing in TV articles, as it is basically OR. Positive to mixed really just means "mixed", otherwise we have editorial voice providing its own summary of reviews.
    • Changed. I just had it there because there were 3 or so reviews that were positive, and then several others that were more mixed. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While visual elements were praised, the story received mixed reception in regards to characters and the resolution.": Perhaps "Although visual elements of the story were praised, the characters and resolution of the episode received a mixed reception."

Plot

  • Not sure about the weighting here. The plot section is roughly one third of the article, and in my view needs to be cut a little.
    • I'll try to work on it. I tried earlier but there are just so many elements to the plot.... Glimmer721 talk
  • Also, the plot section does not really reflect the twisty nature of the plot; the back-and-forth between the "present" and the "flashback". For example, the episode opens with Churchill. But I'm not sure of a neat way to do this.
    • Yeah, me neither. It did occur to me, but I felt it would be too choppy or long written that way. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which enable them to avoid the memory alterations caused by the Silence.": Not sure this is quite correct; did they not simply record the images so that the wearer could remember what happened, rather than prevent memory alterations?
    • I've reworded it to be more vague, as the actual specifics are not elaborated on. Either way it did prevent the wearer from forgetting. It's something about forging a neural pathway to remind the wearer of the Silence. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't offer any further comment on this section until the above points are addressed or answered (feel free to argue, by the way!).
  • Continuity (I'm never too sure how encyclopaedic these sections are, but that is just me): "In "Forest of the Dead", River whispers something in the Doctor's ear that makes him trust her, which the Doctor states just before her death was "my name" and that "There's only one reason I would ever tell anyone my name"." Worth mentioning that the Doctor whispers something to River in "Let's Kill Hitler"?
    • I don't think that's been commented upon by any of the sources I've read, but if something is revealed in the actual series then it will be added. There's also the comment in the Confidential for "A Good Man Goes to War" that the Gallifreyan name on the cot was the Doctor's name - implying that if River could read Gallifreyan, then she would know his name. Both hinge on speculation at the present moment. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, just to check (and apologies if I have raised this with you before), is it common in TV articles to refer to characters by their first name (i.e. River, rather than Song)? Not a big deal either way.
    • I think the rule is generally towards whatever the characters are commonly referred to by the other characters. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Production

  • "concludes the arc of the Doctor's apparent death which began in the series opener, "The Impossible Astronaut", as well as more pieces of River Song's timeline.": Again, "story arc" may be more accessible for the general reader. Also, as written, this suggests that the episode "concludes … more pieces of River Song's timeline". Maybe reword the last part to "and resolves more parts of River Song's timeline".
  • "Several previous characters reappear in the episode": How can you have a "previous character". Perhaps just cut "previous".
  • Done, "reappear" does cover it. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…which was also the inspiration for the previous Doctor Who Christmas special.": Is this relevant to the episode at hand?
    • Nope. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to keep in Dickens, that is fine as it directly concerns this episode. It was the relevance of the Christmas special I was unsure of. But no matter either way. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As her director is Richard Senior, the sequence was most likely shot during the making of "Let's Kill Hitler".": I'm afraid I neither understand this nor see its relevance.
    • Richard Senior was shown as the direct to Viera and his only directing credit for series 6 is "Let's Kill Hitler", thus it was shot during the filming of that episode (as the authors of that book have kindly deduced). The significance being it was filmed at a different point than most of the episode. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see now. What about re-wording to "as Richard Senior directed her sequences..." to make it clearer? Sarastro1 (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast and reception

  • Audience share?
    • Not in the article, but I'll see if I can find a reliable source on it. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The episode has received positive to mixed reviews from critics.": As in the lead, this is vaguely OR. And reading the reviews here, they do not seem too mixed. One or two with reservations, but not enough to call it mixed.
    • So should I change it to "positive" then? Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your call really, but I think it should be positive or mixed. What about something like "mainly positive but with reservations over X and Y"? Sarastro1 (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have done that.
  • I think perhaps too many reviewers are quoted when a one sentence summary of their views would suffice. As it is, this section is perhaps a little long.
    • I'll check this out. I generally like to explain what the reviewers felt was wrong or right using their words, to avoid any possible paraphrasing issues. Looking over it, a lot of the reviewers got only one sentence. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you are happy with the balance as it is now, that is fine with me and would not be an issue for this one passing. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I combined two of the smaller paragraphs together. Glimmer721 talk 17:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • Spotchecks reveal no major problems
    • "and provided the uncredited voice of Danny Boy in "Victory of the Daleks".": Uncredited is not supported by the ref.
    • Done. It doesn't matter anyway. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One image, appropriately licences.
  • No dablinks, and external links seem fine.

I'll place this on hold for the moment, but don't foresee any major problems with passing. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the minor issues and will work on the bigger ones. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some strikes. I'll have another look at the plot section later and see if I have any solutions as I appreciate the difficulties here. It's not the easiest story to summarise. Otherwise, looking very good. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Went through the plot and cut some detail out. I've checked out some TV episode pages of shows that often use flashbacks/flash-sideways (like Lost, which I have never seen) and in the plot sections they are put in a separate section or paragraph from the main plot, so I think the current structure would suffice. Glimmer721 talk 17:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, good to go now. My one remaining query (and this may be my memory failing): when River went to see Amy, I don't remember it being after Amy had witnessed the Doctor's death, but rather after the events that had ... sort of ... not really happened in this story. But I suspect you may know better than me on this one, so passing anyway. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be after; when River asks her what's up, she says, "Well, the Doctor's dead", and then River explains what actually happened. Glimmer721 talk 02:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Wedding of River Song. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Wedding of River Song. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Wedding_of_River_Song&oldid=1207153639"