Talk:Melody Pond (Prequel to The Impossible Astronaut)

Unknown
Not much to say really. We should implement it as "unknown" because the credit is usually a rank or office. I expect this character will be named in part two, but I'll be useful for future reference.Skittles the hog-- Talk 20:16, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Infobox name
It should be "Little girl". Across this wiki, more page have their title (i.e policeman, vicar, little girl, woman) as their name in the infobox. The name in the infobox should be the page name (bar anything in brackets). Mini-mitch\talk 20:16, April 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * Erm...why? Because "unknown" suggest we lack knowledge. Yeah, little girl, that's an individual's name. See Coolie (The Talons of Weng-Chiang) for an example of this implemented.Skittles the hog-- Talk 20:20, April 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * Because that's their name given in Doctor Who, and that's the name that should be given in the infobox. See:


 * Vicar (Family of Blood)
 * Vicar (Father's Day)
 * Vicar (Remembrance of the Daleks)
 * Vicar (The Next Doctor)
 * Vicar (The Runaway Bride)
 * Little Girl (The Runaway Bride)
 * Man (Turn Left)
 * Woman (Turn Left)
 * Woman (Last of the Time Lords)

These are just a small amount of the page where an unnamed character has had their title as the infobox page name. It make sense to keep it that way. That is there name given in the DWU, so that's the name we give them. Not putting their given name in the infobox is like create the page called "Unknown Little Girl" Mini-mitch\talk 20:26, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

No, its not there name in Dr Who, just in the credits. Your only real argument is: this is what's going on at the moment. So, yes, it would take a while to implement. However, it will be good once it's finished.Skittles the hog-- Talk 20:29, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Regarding killing the Doctor
After seeing next weeks episode (which by the way I have) you may be under the same impression as me that the little girl did not actually kill the Doctor - surley something like tht should not be put in till we actually have confirmation it was her who did it!91.108.5.196 18:28, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

We place as much information as we know from the stories that have been broadcast, if something changes in the next episode then we will just have to go back and sort things out. --Revan\Talk 18:31, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

My point is, even from the story, we dont know it was the little girl - the fact is we didnt see the face of the shooter... 91.108.5.196 18:34, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

We don't have any info to the contrary.Skittles the hog-- Talk 19:30, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

Then remove the information, otherwise it is speculation, and classified as incorrect until canonical confirmation. Rassilon of Old (Talk - TTFF - Teru) 14:22, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Split page?
I know we have so little info but from what it looks like the little girl and the spaceman (or impossible astronaut) are two different enitiy's and should be seperated on this wiki as stated before there is no proof that it was the little girl that killed the doctor but the spaceman did! Lastly all we know so far is that she's wearing a spacesuit like the the one that the person (*coughcough*river*coughcough*) that killed the doctor did not that she is or wearing the one!


 * I also suggest we keep this page solely for the girl, but create another page for the actual suit, as it is a piece of technology, not the same entity as the girl. D0ct0r11 16:13, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Since the girl was in the suit for a time then we should have all that info on the page, but obviously now we know she escaped the suit and it can move on its own then we shouldn't have the 2011 info there. --Revan\Talk 16:23, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Beach Scene
Hi, I'm not really a contributer so feel free to ignore everything I say but I was wondering if you should add an image or a mention that when the 1,103 Doctor is on the beach and tells the Astronaut his know's who they are, their flesh seems to be rotted during the split second it lifts up the helmet Visor. Just incase you didn't notice and wanted to mention it in the article. 92.14.123.98 18:02, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Locked?
Why is this page locked? There is no reason whatsoever for it to be locked! I don't know why admins feel they have right now to do what they like -- Michael Downey 18:20, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Too much speculation was being added, so admins decided to lock it 24 hours. Mini-mitch\talk 18:23, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

This was a group decision from 3 admins, the page is a target of speculation and it is almost impossible to edit the page for speculatory edits. The page has been locked for 24 hours, if you want to add anything to the page please write your proposed entry on this talk page and we can then place it in the article. Thank you. --Revan\Talk 18:22, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Add video
Can we add this video of the "regeneration"? http://youtu.be/gttPZV3icHE Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:20, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Nope. It's against Tardis:Video policy.Skittles the hog-- Talk 19:22, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Proposed revision
This girl contacted Richard Nixon for help, as she was scared of the "Monsters" and believed that "the spaceman" was trying to eat her. She told Nixon the words "Jefferson Adams Hamilton", leading Nixon to believe she was a boy, but the Eleventh Doctor helped them to discover that these were the names of street names, the only three in the same place together in Florida, at that time the only place that spacemen could be found.

She was later found by The Doctor, but was shot at by Amy Pond, who recognised the space suit, and believed that the girl had/would at some point kill the doctor. (DW: The Impossible Astronaut)

Three months later she again encountered Amy, who had only shot a hole in the suit's visor, in what appeared to be her bedroom at the Graystark Hall Children's Home. After Amy was kidnapped by the Silence, she was able to free herself from the suit, which had been fitted with Alien technology to act as a life support.

Six months later, her deteriorating health caused her to regenerate. (DW: Day of the Moon)

Shooting
Why is Amy shooting the girl in the suit listed as being in the Day of the Moon and not Impossible Astronaut? Geek Mythology 20:46, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Home Planet
You cant put her home planet as Earth we dont even no who her parents are seeing as the admins have locked there's nothing we can't do anything about it i understand the point of locking it but not for 24 hours we have to change it to Earth (Seen Last) The mysterious 10:03, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Near-human
Until we know for sure, can the page at least be edited to display the little girl's species as Near-human? Witoki 15:39, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

I've cleared up the Earth and near-human issues. If there are any more, please make them clear here. Thanks.Skittles the hog-- Talk 16:25, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Near-Time Lord?
Perhaps a bit out there... but surely she should be Near-Time Lady? Like the Doctor has said, the Time Lords came first, and regeneration is nothing to do with Humans, but Time Lords. So wouldn't it actually be more accurate to say she is "Near Time Lady"? --The Thirteenth Doctor 16:08, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Near-Human is just a term that refers to the many races that look identical to Humans, which the little girl clearly is. Gallifreyans are mentioned on the near-human page as probably being the first near-humans. It is possible that it would make more sense to use the term near-timelord or near-gallifreyan universally on this wiki, as Timelords did come first, but for now, the term that is used here is near-human.Icecreamdif 17:27, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

It is not a case of "what came first", but what is recognisable. Near-human is a term that can apply to races like the Morestrans or Tigellans. It does indeed apply to this character.Skittles the hog-- Talk 17:31, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Since this wiki is written from an in-universe perspective, it might make more sense to refer to Morestrans, Tegellans, and Humans, as near-timelord, since the Time Lords came first, and had a much greater impact on the universe than the Humans did. The Time Lords are pretty recognizable, since the Doctor has been in almost every episode.Icecreamdif 17:35, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Not really. A think you'd recognise a human more, you know, because that's what you are. Additionally, Morestrans and T i gellans show no sign of Time Lord biology. They are more human-like than Time Lord-like by a long shot.Skittles the hog-- Talk 17:40, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Why aren't we just putting humanoid down, its exactly what we know really. --Revan\Talk 17:50, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Humanoid fair enough, if a bit vague.Skittles the hog-- Talk 17:58, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Either that or have it blank, that better shows what we really know about her. --Revan\Talk 18:04, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

She is quite clearly near-human. Is a Time Lord not near-human? I would consider them so. Supposing you agree, it makes her near-human any way you look at it. I reinstated the near-human line as it screws with the formatting, but please do continue to discuss.Skittles the hog-- Talk 18:18, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

When I was talking about changing it to near-timelord, I was mainly thinking about the Doctor's comments in The Beast Below when he told Amy that she looked Time Lord, because they came first. Either way, the way the term is used now, the little girl is definetly a human or a near-human.Icecreamdif 20:20, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Is she River Song/Melody?
I think that this page should be merged with the page River Song as we now know that she is River. The fact that they are the same person explains why River was imprisoned for killing 'a very great man', which she did as a little girl in the spacesuit, killing The Doctor. (Grey Beret)

Grey there are hint of this however maybe this just to make us think this, it has as yet been confirmed until it is the two pages, I think, should stay separate. (CPC 1)

We don't know that for a fact. Granted thats what makes sense considering the pictures and she regenerates (into river songs appearance most likely) but we still don't know this for sure. And personally i think it should remain seperate pages with simply a section explaining that she may be Melody/River and stay that way until it's confirmed in the show, (hopefully this season) that she is for a fact melody/river. (Nathan)

If we "know" that she is River, why do the little girl and River have different accents?(Truthbealiar 03:33, June 5, 2011 (UTC))


 * Accents can change during regeneration, can they not? 72.200.145.175 03:53, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * True, because look at the Seventh and Tenth Doctors, they both had differences in accents... So technically, yes... TheTARDIScontroller 04:57, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Surely the little girl is River, and here is my reasons as to why I believe this: She's most definitely River. As Geek Mythology has pointed out, the Little Girl was shown at the beginning of the episode in the recap, implying that she's important to the plot. It makes much more sense for the girl to be River/Melody than not. (Then this nice piece of trivia can be added: "Sydney Wade played the daughter of Alex Kingston's character in TV drama Marchlands.") D0ct0r11 14:43, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. In Day of the Moon we see the a picture of the girl as a baby with Amy, indicating that she is Amy's daughter.
 * 2. In Day of the Moon, she regenerates, and in A Good Man, we are told that Amy's daughter has developed Time-Lord DNA.
 * 3 There are no other Time-Lords. Even assuming Jenny (The Doctors Daughter) could regenerate, all evidence suggests that regeneration only results in another adult body, and therefore could not be the child.
 * 4 The flashback to the suit in Day of The Moon.
 * 5. And this is my main point . . . It is a program aimed at Children!!! I realise that, like myself, many other contributors watch other sci fi shows that do over complicate things (lost, battlestar galactica), but please realise that this is not one of them. Doctor Who is designed and written so that children can understand what is happening, so why do (I presume?) adults keep arguing back and forth??.Geek Mythology 09:27, June 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * All that being said, we do not know for certain that the little girl is River. I'd agree it's where the information is trending, but we need to see it on screen before we include such statements in our articles.  A counter argument is that if she's really River, why does (adult) River act so clueless as to the identity of the girl in the astronaut suit?  Until we can answer that question, we don't really know jack.  This article will remain under its current title, separate from the River article, until the mystery is completely explained on screen.  As Moffat said in the attendant Confidential, the "answer" we saw in AGMGTW was as complicated as the question.  To him, any answer that's just an answer is boring.  14:56:19 Sun 05 Jun 2011


 * I agree that the answer is as complicated as the question, but it is an answer nonetheless. We have been clearly shown that the girl is River. There are many mysteries still surrounding this, but we've been given that part at least. (River's failure to own up to being the girl and acknowledge Amy and Rory as her parents during previous meetings don't seem particularly mysterious, given her spoilers policy.)
 * As D0ct0r11 points out, this show isn't as convoluted as Lost or BSG, but even if it were, basic reveals like this on either of those shows didn't get clawed back. To suggest we don't yet have enough information takes skepticism to an unworkable level; we need to trust the clear narrative devices of the show if we are to make a sensible encyclopedia.--BBCXI 15:30, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we don't know all the information, and I am guessing that the next six episodes will fill in the gaps, explain more about the space suit etc, but A Good Man did show us proof onscreen. When I talked of the flashback, I was referring not a recap at the start of the episode, but at the Doctor himself thinking back to the previous events of 1969 when finding out about Melody's Time Lord DNA.

As much as some information is still being with held, I don't see Moffat deliberately decieving. There will be more than just an answer, but this is still the first part.Geek Mythology 16:53, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

It seems highly unlikely that the Little Girl is not River Song. The Doctor seemed certain she was. I vote for merging this article with the one on River. Bluebox444 20:24, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Moffet HAS deliberately decieved us before and the fact this is a show for children does not stop some of the plots from been confusing (The End of Time and The Almost People for example). They may not be confusing to you but to a child they can. Waiting is a very good idea as it was impliednot confermed.--82.11.57.232 16:22, June 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok anyone who wants to argue for the pages to be merged, answer this; is there any concrete evidence that the little girl is River? And I mean stated in words or writing... not thoughts... what the Doctor thinks is not always correct, a main example being numerous times in The Curse of the Black Spot; "ignore all my previous theories". As long as there is still the possibility that this little girl could be anyone else, anyone at all, we can't say she is River. So if anyone can provide absolute concrete evidence that she is River, go ahead. And as for Moffat not being deliberately deceiving? Have you seen his twitter? General consensus with the fans is that he is the ultimate troll, in the nicest form... lol --The Thirteenth Doctor 17:03, June 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think evidence really works; we need to trust the narrative. For example, we don't have proof that River isn't lying about being Melody, or that the Doctor isn't lying about Rory being the father. But we know both of those things, because it's the clear intent of the narrative.
 * When something is conveyed through a narrative device such as a flashback, it's much more reliable than something shown explicitly on screen. We are often asked to review and revisit what we have seen, but I can't think of any examples where information conveyed through a technique such as a flashback was later clawed back.--BBCXI 00:48, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidence is needed. Fact. The flashbacks are used to show what the Doctor was thinking. The Doctor has thought wrong before... just like in my example above, The Curse of the Black Spot; "ignore all my previous theories", a direct quote from the Doctor. He's thought incorrectly before, and will do again. Even if that's what the narrative seems to be seeing, that's just it... it seems to say that, not definitely. There's a difference between implications and direct statements. River had absolutely no reason to lie as to who she was, and we knew that who she was would be revealed, so we know that she is Melody. However, nothing was actually said about Melody definitely being the little girl. It was implied, yes, but not stated. Fact is... this wiki goes by what is stated through statements, seen actions, and written words on screen. We don't go on implications. --The Thirteenth Doctor 15:04, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

This is a kid's show. when they show a flashback of who someone was, that is who they are. The Doctor says that they have already taken her to Earth to be raised in a suitable time, such as the late 1960s, as seen in The Impossible Astronaut/The Day of the Moon. They purposefully wanted to reveal who she was, so that they can keep a child's attention span. They would rather scare children than confuse them to the point of not watching the show. If you were to ask Steven Moffat if River was the "little girl", he would tell you to watch A Good Man Goes to War. Moffat also, when talking about answering questions talks about her being the little girl, and how that answer raises more questions, in the Doctor Who Confidential The Born Identity. It would be better to merge the two articles, as the show states they are one character, and separate them later if there is another reveal that the little girl is another character. As far as River's "not knowing" who the little girl was, doesn't she admit that she lies? doesn't she say "I'm from his future, I always know". Couldn't her pressing questions be more leading the TARDIS crew on rather than truly be out of the know? If that argument doesn't feel sound, you can also remember who the girl was spending her time with: The Silence, those who erase themselves from the memories of anyone who ever sees them. It has been explicitly said, not as "I'm the little girl" because River hasn't met her past self in 1969 yet, and the little girl never comes in contact with her adult self.JakeRyan17 06:12, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

Following the same train of thought that it has only been implied through thoughts and opinions, then the Doctor from the revived series should be separated from that of the original series. There is no evidence that they are the same time lord, we never see the 8th regenerate into the 9th, only his thoughts and the assumptions of others have said they're the same person. He could be an impersonator! Steven Moffat purposefully lies on his Twitter, so people won't know these types of things before he reveals them on screen. So either the articles should be merged, or everything else should be separated by what's explicitly stated on-screen and not by someone's opinion. As far as The End of Time and The Rebel Flesh/The Almost People being confusing or deceiving, they still reveal what's going on.JakeRyan17 17:42, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

School Reunion shows the Doctor of the new series is not an impostor through words. I am nearly 95% sure they are the same person but it would not be unreasonable for Moffet to make us think something for three months and then say it is really something else and Moffet is a good enough writer to make them seperate people.--82.11.57.232 18:31, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

Behind the scenes
I added a "Behind the scenes" section detailing what we know about the Little Girl - that it was implied she is River/Melody, but that it hasn't been confirmed. I think this is a reasonable compromise, who agrees?--The Traveller 09:53, June 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems to me to be the best way to go until we know more. Tardis1963 06:59, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

Redirect
Is there a reson Melody redirects here and not to River Song? Glimmer721 16:11, June 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * There isn't any that I can see except some confusion in the editing when River was revealed to be Medlody, changed it. The Light6 09:01, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

2 girls?
How do we know that the girl in the space suit is the same girl as the girl regenerating? They look different so how do we know they are the same girl?

They do look the same. Just in case you still don't think so, it's the same actor credited for the role/s. Skittles the hog-- Talk 19:46, June 25, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not an in-universe source is it? Cortion 07:40, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's a valid one. Or are you suggesting she has an identical twin. Skittles the hog-- Talk 14:54, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

It's very possible. BroadcastCorp. 10:59, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Song Connection
So I do not want to repeat something so correct me if this has been already said. But I was re-watching Day of the Moon and I noticed the song playing when the Little Girl regenerated is the same song being played when the River told the Doctor, Amy, and Rory who she was. Should this be noted? 09:23, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

Just a bit more evidence that she is Melody/River, but if you've read this section before you posted this item, you know we're not saying she is until it's confirmed by words and deeds, not music. Please remember to sign your contributions here.Boblipton 11:03, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

That music isn't reliable since it is also used at the future Doctors funeral.--82.11.57.232 18:32, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

River
In Let's Kill Hitler, Melody mentioned regenerating in New York, implying she was the little girl, who regenerated into Mels, and then River


 * Yep. That's us got out on screenproof :). We've got the merge template on the page, so the page will be merged into the River Song one soon. MM/ Want to talk? 19:29, August 27, 2011 (UTC)