Talk:River Song

is river the Little girl?
I don't think the little girl in the astronaut suit from Day of the Moon should be included in this article, as we do not know for sure that it is herLord Aro 20:23, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely agreed. Nothing says that the little girl is River. For all we know the little girl is River and the Doctor's child, hence why she's seen that cot before... and why he then knew they would be kissing. Nothing at all says that River is the child, or that Madam Kovarian was working with the Silence. --The Thirteenth Doctor 20:38, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * The flashback where the Doctor was piecing things together stated that the girl was River, well Melody it was at the time. --Revan\Talk 20:39, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * But that's the thing... we don't know it is. All we know is that the little girl is part Time Lord... not that she is definitely River... we're still presuming that the little girl is Melody... --The Thirteenth Doctor 21:42, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case any mention of the he little girl should be removed as it is just speculation until confirmed otherwise - we should only be detailing the confirmed facts.95.145.220.97 00:11, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Would someone mind explaining the fact that in the little girl's room, among pictures of her, was a picture of Amy holding Melody/River? Because it's her. Would anyone also mind explaining why whenever discussing Melody, there were flashbacks to the little girl? What about the reference to Melody/River being able to possibly regenerate? Or how it was stated that the little girl was a human, and yet we saw her regenerate? Human plus Time Lord. For crying out loud, the little girl is Melody/River, how more obvious could it get? Why, among there her pictures, would she have a picture of Amy holding Melody/River? Why flashback to the girl when talking about Melody/River? Some people are so stubborn. 90.199.247.156 03:45, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Would someone mind explaining the fact that in the little girl's room, among pictures of her, was a picture of Amy holding Melody/River? Because it's her. Would anyone also mind explaining why whenever discussing Melody, there were flashbacks to the little girl? What about the reference to Melody/River being able to possibly regenerate? Or how it was stated that the little girl was a human, and yet we saw her regenerate? Human plus Time Lord. For crying out loud, the little girl is Melody/River, how more obvious could it get? Why, among there her pictures, would she have a picture of Amy holding Melody/River? Why flashback to the girl when talking about Melody/River? Some people are so stubborn. 90.199.247.156 03:45, June 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I've got a picture of my grandmother holding my father as a baby. Does that actually mean my grandmother is actually my mother? I don't think so. Why were the flashbacks related to her? Because that's what the Doctor was thinking... not what was true... and like the Doctor said.... it's possible she could regenerate... not definite. It's entirely possible that the little girl is the Doctor and River's child... nothing has been concretely said that it is her. If you can just go with the implication that the little girl is River... I want it also stated on the page that the Doctor and River are lovers... cause that's been implied as well. --The Thirteenth Doctor 12:12, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that the little girl is Melody/River. It would be absurd for her not to be. It is true that some are stubborn. Perhaps there is some merit in being "sure of the facts" but I think we are as sure as we can be. In the event that a blinder is pulled, the facts can always been changed. Perhaps a solution would be to say that it very much appears to be the case that the little girl is River, for the reasons explained by the person two paragrapshs above me. But we all know the internet...
 * Just because when The Doctor was piecing together little bits of information regarding Melody and thinking about the little girl does not make them the same person - its just where his mind and ours have gone, due to all the facts that are available - you have to remember, The Doctor doesn't the little girl regenerated only the homeless man knows that - and he wont know for sure what was going on. The question was "could she regenrated" the doctor thought and replied "maybe" I dont see that as confirmation that they are the same! Those flash backs were for our, the viewers interests, probably to make us think the little girl is indeed River. Is she, well who knows? So far we are led to beleive so, but until we have confirmation we can't be sure - who knows - the the little girl could be a child of Rivers and the Doctors - its not uncommon for there to be pictures of a grandparent holding a grand child - and we have as much fact to say this is the case too! Also, did anyone watch confidential? Im fairly sure that Moffat mentioned something in the episode about "who is the little girl?" this makes me think there might be more to it that "she is a younger River Song" - but hey who knows? just be patient guys - if you are indeed right, it will get put in 95.145.221.134 01:53, June 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's quite an absurd suggestion that the show's creators would use flashbacks as a narrative device to tell us that the girl is Melody, and then, four months (or more) after the fact, use a 'gotcha' reveal that there are in fact two abducted-by-hostile-forces-childhood-connection-to-Amy-time-lady girls running around. I would have great difficulty coming up with such an example of poor story telling in any modern TV show.
 * I agree that some degree of skepticism should be employed and speculation avoided, but there are limits. We can't write articles to accommodate all possible outlandish theories; we have to go with what we have been shown.--BBCXI 22:39, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree, that it does sound far fetched that there will be two abducted-by-hostile-forces-childhood-connection-to-Amy-time-lady girls running around and the little girl will probably turn out to be River - the fact remains nowhere has it been confirmed that they are indeed the same person, people are arguing the flashbacks are good enoughevidence. But they really are not. The Wikia doesnt deal with speculation, just fact and until there has been confirmation, actual spoken confirmation - it will only ever be speculation that they are indeed the same and as such should be left from the article....
 * The same thing happened last year, with the aparent continuity error with the Doctors Jacket in the forest - it was quite clearly a future Doctor, however until actual proof came in the last episode it couldn't be put in its respected article80.193.71.144 10:03, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeesh! Think about! Why would the Doctor have a flashback to the little girl in America and River's discription of her, hmm? This means that the little girl IS River, making it a completely logical reason to merge her page into River's. There can;t be another person with Time Lord DNA besides her and the full Time Lord Doctor. Forgetful 10th doctor fan 19:59, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but thats absolute rubbish! The Doctor did not have the Flashback! He didn't even see the girl regenerate and correct me if I am wrong, but no where has it been stated Melody/River could. Just that it was possible. The flashback was for our purpose..As stated to make us think they are the same and in all honesty it looks to be working - as I have said before I think River and The Little girl will probably be the same person, however it can't beput in the article, we don't have the confirmation and they have about the same ammount of chance to be different people. 95.145.221.134 22:03, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeesh! Think about! Why would the Doctor have a flashback to the little girl in America and River's discription of her, hmm? This means that the little girl IS River, making it a completely logical reason to merge her page into River's. There can;t be another person with Time Lord DNA besides her and the full Time Lord Doctor. Forgetful 10th doctor fan 19:59, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but thats absolute rubbish! The Doctor did not have the Flashback! He didn't even see the girl regenerate and correct me if I am wrong, but no where has it been stated Melody/River could. Just that it was possible. The flashback was for our purpose..As stated to make us think they are the same and in all honesty it looks to be working - as I have said before I think River and The Little girl will probably be the same person, however it can't beput in the article, we don't have the confirmation and they have about the same ammount of chance to be different people. 95.145.221.134 22:03, June 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * You've highlighted the exact problem, that you have to "think about it". Until there is explicit proof (which we currently do not have beyond supposition from a flashback), it's speculation. d ● ● ●  20:07, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not the same as the Doctor's jacket. That was a small teaser inserted for the eagle eyed viewer, and even though it seemed like a future Doctor, we could not be sure. What did seem obvious was that it was put there for our amusement and theorising. Moffat wanted us to debate it. He wanted it to be controversial The issue of the Little Girl has been put beyond reasonable speculation now. The links are clear. To anyone with an iota of logic, we're not supposed to be left in doubt. After all, to pull the rug on us now and say that the girl isn't River would just be illogical and detract from the story. By refusing to sanction a merger, all that is being achieved is an exercise in pedanticism.JoelJoel321 21:30, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * No - this is the same thing as The Doctors Jacket. countless people argued it was too much to be a continuity error and as you put it "a small teaser for the eagle eyes viewer" did it get put in? Yes! but only after we had confirmation at the end of the series. My point was while there seems to be a lot of evidence to suggest the girl and river are one and the same - theres no actual confirmation and until we get it. It can not go in 95.145.221.134 22:03, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is all the evidence we have to them been the same person:
 * 1 They are both time ladies and could regenerate (it was never confirmed River could).
 * 2 The picture in the girls room of Amy holding a baby.
 * 3 The flashback the doctor had.
 * It is not beyond the limits of belief to have Moffet lead us down the wrong route and the Doctor has less proof they are the same person than we have.
 * Also having two young Time Ladies is not impossible. What could be better than useing one Time Lady as a weapon? How about two.
 * As for the picture, I have just realised its biggest oddity of WHEN could it have been taken? Korvain took Melody of Amy before she had a chance to take it and there was no time after getting the flesh copy. --82.11.57.232 19:55, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * ...Amy had Melody for a month after her birth and before Korvain took her. Plenty of time for a quick photo. -- Bold  Clone  20:11, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the thought occurred to me this week. There are all those pictures of the little girl in the little girl's room. Does anyone keep a picture of herself among her keepsakes?. Boblipton 16:07, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the thought occurred to me this week. There are all those pictures of the little girl in the little girl's room. Does anyone keep a picture of herself among her keepsakes?. Boblipton 16:07, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the thought occurred to me this week. There are all those pictures of the little girl in the little girl's room. Does anyone keep a picture of herself among her keepsakes?. Boblipton 16:07, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

Sydney Wade
It's not yet definitely confirmed that the Little Girl is River. Sydney Wade should be removed from the infobox. - Sikon 07:26, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Done Skittles the hog-- Talk 10:41, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

The little girl is obviously her! The Doctor SAID it! The little girl REGENERATED! MELODY WAS A TIME LORD! Jeez. - User:BillyWilliam3rd 20:12, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. Another hypothesis is that she is the daughter of the Doctor and River -- River was nauseated during THE IMPOSSIBLE ASTRONAUT. Speculation is one thing, but proof is another. Boblipton 11:19, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, to the previous guy, ARE YOU A MORON!? It;s obviosuly River we see in the opening two parter! Why else would there be a "near-human" little girl in the story if its not her!? (173.167.179.77 22:12, August 22, 2011 (UTC))


 * Cut the attitude, or I might block you. There is not an in-universe source that says the Little Girl in TIA/TDOTM is River, that's is yet to be confirmed. If you want to believe that it's River, that's fine, but we as a wiki need to wait until we have a solid statement. MM/ Want to talk? 22:26, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm a moron, but of course, none of us do, and any of us could be mistaken. To answer your second question, the little girl could be a 'red herring', intended to lead the viewer to an incorrect conclusion. Boblipton 22:24, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

Human Plus
We know that biologically speaking, River is essentially human. What's more, they seem to suggest that Melody was not a proper Time Lady, but rather she was born with the ability to regenerate. I would suggest removing Time Lady from her species information and either leaving her as just human, or creating a new article for the species "Human Plus". Witoki 22:50, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

I agree! We dont actually know she has the ability to regenrate - the episode didnt confirm she could regenerate, just that it was possible. The episode then showed the little girl regenerating, however thats not what the Doctor was thinking at the time as he doesnt know that actually happened 80.193.71.144 10:06, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, until we have confirmation that River is the Little Girl from TIA/DooM, there's no reason to list "Time Lady" at all. Witoki 17:54, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't just ignore the Time Lady part, we need to add: human (with some Time Lord DNA) or similar. --Revan\Talk 18:02, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * But it isn't Time Lord DNA, it's vortex-altered Human DNA (hence the "Human Plus" term). Witoki 18:05, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * It was said in the episode that the DNA had Time Lord patterns in it. --Revan\Talk 18:07, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Then it resembles Time Lord DNA, but that does not define it as actually being part Time Lord. Until we know for certain that she does carry the genetic traits of a Time Lord, we cannot suggest for sure that she is a Time Lady. We either need to see her regenerate (or confirm she was the Astronaut Girl) or have two hearts before we can make the claim, especially considering both her parents are human. Witoki 18:17, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, we don't know that she can complete a regeneration until we have some onscreen verification. We've all seen interrupted regenerations -- heck, there was one in the previous episode. Nonetheless, while we know that the little girl has the genetic capacity to release the energy associated with regeneration, we don't know, as yet if she can channel it into a regeneration. Mind you, I'm willing to take reasonable odds that it is regeneration we see occuring, but there's a difference between belief and knowledge. Boblipton 16:15, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, we don't know that she can complete a regeneration until we have some onscreen verification. We've all seen interrupted regenerations -- heck, there was one in the previous episode. Nonetheless, while we know that the little girl has the genetic capacity to release the energy associated with regeneration, we don't know, as yet if she can channel it into a regeneration. Mind you, I'm willing to take reasonable odds that it is regeneration we see occuring, but there's a difference between belief and knowledge. Boblipton 16:15, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

River's incarnations
I'm probably jumping the gun on this one, since I don't think this is confirmed, only incinuated. But River can regenerate, in fact we saw her regenerate at the end of Day of the Moon (though some might argue that wasn't confirmed, I'd argue they are wrong so it doesn't matter). So, should we have separate pages for her different incarnations? Okay, we've only seen two to date, First and Last River, (first being baby River, and the child in the suit played by Sydney Wade; and last played by Alex Kingston) and it's probably not a big deal to have them under one page. I'm just curious, if one of her earlier incarnations makes a major appearance, are we going to create a page for Second-to-Last River?

I'm just saying this because we have pages for each of the Doctor's incarnations, each of the Master's incarnations, each of Romana's incarnations. Why not for River's incarnations? But, like I said, I'm probably jumping the gun. I'm an impatiant man. - BlackWidower 00:52, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

It may be true, but Steven has fooled us before. Though if it is true (I'm betting it is. River has natural curly hair (obviously) so she must have regenerated. this may even explain how Jenny regenerated) we should make a new page for each regeneration. But the down to earth situation is we are a FACTUAL site. And as contributers, we need to provide those facts. and unfortunately, they are not facts untill aired or published. So please keep to information that has been approved by moffat himself - Landisnicholas 21:19, June 14 2011 (EST)

"And a last time"
My edit to soften the claim that River "would never kiss [the Doctor] again." after the events of Day of the Moon was undone without comment, so I'm posting it here for discussion. We know that River's adventures are generally so far in reverse order from the Doctor's, meaning he knows her less and less each time, so when he kisses her and reflects on their first kiss from his perspective ("First time for everything"), she says "And a last time."

It doesn't make sense to me to suggest that this statement means the character somehow knows that she will never kiss the Doctor again. In-universe, there is simply no way that she could know that. From the audience's perspective, we know at the very least that a future Doctor visits her just before the Library to say goodbye; no reason not to expect a kiss there.

I interpret the statement to be a general statement on her time with the Doctor slipping away as they progress through their generally "back to front" relationship. But we know it's not exactly back to front, so it doesn't make sense to say that this is the absolute last kiss. -BBCXI 00:10, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

From beginning to end.
Example: the Donna Noble page shows her original name to be as such and is later named Donna Temple-Noble.

So it would make sense for the character page to say "Melody Pond (later River Song)". And for River Song to be one of her aliases. So much more sense- making than leaving it as it is. (173.167.179.77 14:34, July 30, 2011 (UTC))

Very logical, and in many ways correct. However, until they start calling her "Melody" regularly on the show, it would perhaps be best to stick to 'River Song.' If we ever get to the stage where we have onscreen confirmation that she regenerates, we may wish to have separate articles for her various incarnations. However, we have had several Time Lords appear in different incarnations with just one article to cover all of them -- Borusa springs to mind. I think, in the end, it's a matter of convenience to have separate articles, lest they become too large. And then we can argue about whether she is Melody Pond or Meoldy Williams. Boblipton 16:22, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

i'm pretty sure the new episode made it pretty clear that she can regenerate...Dark |Shadow |Sword 07:06, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Boblipton, she's definitely Melody Pond. The Tesselecta refers to her as Melody Pond, and Melody Williams wouldn't translate to River Song.

Pictures
I think River may need a few more pictures on this page. Could someone please do that. Thanks 78.105.95.95 13:12, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

different incarnations pages
Maybe we should give each of River's incarnations a seperate page? I even made a template (just to show you what it'll be like, delete it if its unnecessary) DuduDoctor 20:26, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree with you. I has been confirmed in Let's kill hitler that Rivers the astronaut/ girl in alley, So i think this should be made.


 * Definitely. I think we should do it. Rassilon of Old (Talk - Contribs) 04:30, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary - in the case of the Doctor, we have many adventures with each incarnation, and know a lot about each one - however, with River, we predominantly see only her third incarnation, so we don't really have enough information (in my opinion) about her earlier incarnations to justify making separate pages for each. Aliyoda 13:16, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Just want to say...
Hey, I know the admins have to temporarily protect articles like these after big revalations/events, but an article about River's past incarnations (alike the doctor), should be added to this wiki. And also don't forget that 'The Girl' of america is now revealed to be River, because when Mels was regenerating, she said that the last time she regenerated she was in New York, alike 'The Girl.'

It should be advised that you instate this information where necessary (River Song article, as well as creating some new ones) ASAP. Thanks.

cascade11 (Not logged in)

Rivers ageing
In Lets Kill Hitler, River jokes that "I might take the age down a little bit, just gradually, to freak people out". The line is obviously leaning on the fourth wall about the fact that she is younger in Silence in the Library etc. but should it be added to the article? LoneWolf2056 21:25, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think she looks much younger in SitL. A year or two difference at her age shouldn't really affect her on camera appearence. Remember, Time Lords age differently, and she just went through a regeneration. (Incidentally, the 10th Doctor went through a very difficult recovery following his regeneration, while 11D and RS apparently regen'd with little difficulty. What's up with that?) In addition, she used all her remaining regenration energy to save the Doctor after nearly killing him. She's gotta look older after that. -Jed 108.127.179.246 14:21, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

Well I would imagine taking all the energy from the TARDIS/Time Vortex into yourself could mess up your regeneration a little. We also can't say The Doctor would react the same to every regeneration, he had issues going into 11 were he couldn't remember much initially and had sudden extreme cravings for food.

Name Change
I propose a name change. River Song is the name she chose in her third incarnation, not her third and second. It should be renamed Melody, as this was her name throughout all her incarnations, including the first most likely, as she must have been known by this name, as we see a picture of her as a baby and her mother. We don't use the latest name they chose, as User:Revanvolatrelundar said. If that's true, will we rename the Master, "Harold Saxon"? Or "Master of All", as he said. Those are just aliases, and they were (most probably) only in one incarnation. So... I really think we ought to rename the page. BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 15:57, August 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * While more episodes use "River", Melody is a better umbrella title that applies to all three incarnations (including to an extent the archaeologist one). -- Tybort (talk page) 18:23, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but as with married characters, the latest name is the one that is used. Therefore, River Song should be the title of this article.-- 18:33, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

In Let's kill Hitler the Doctor keeps calling her River, not Melody, thats her most used name, the one she is know for. Gridcube 18:46, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to give my opinion about the name dilema. I think it should stay as River Song due to that being the alias she chooses to go by (paradox much from the gamma forests?) - just like what The Doctor and The Master did. Also I like the name "River Song"!

It doesn't matter if you like the name, that is irrevelant to the discussion. The name "Melody Pond" covers all her incarnations, all three, whilst the name "River Song" just refers to her third incarnation, as Tybort said. To refer to all the incarnations, the name "Melody Pond" is more suitable. This is confusing to readers as well. This is probably what they're thinking. BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 10:55, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

"What? Why does it have the name River Song covering all her three incarnations? Why is there a page called Melody Pond (River Song). This is so confusing."

River Song is the name she uses for the majority of her adventures with the Doctor, so the page should stick with being called River Song. There are very few instances in which she gets called Melody Pond, just in her first two incarnations which we see very little of. Also, they are essentially the same name, just translated. Aliyoda 13:13, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest you also look at Forum:River Song incarnations or full page?, where it has been suggested that all the "incarnation articles" are rolled back into the single River Song page.-- 13:17, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Category:Human etc.?
So, as Melody is human with a bit of Time Lord DNA, would it be inaccurate to place her under stuff like Category:Human companions and Category:Human archaeologists? -- Tybort (talk page) 18:19, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

I think you should put it under Time Lady (or Time Lord) Companions due to it now being rare one will ever be added to it - Her background fits that catagory anyway

Oh, I have no issue adding her to Time Lord-related categories like Time Lord companions (which is probably too small to really implement as a category, but that's neither here nor there). I'm just wondering if it's the right idea to add her to human ones on top of that. -- Tybort (talk page) 19:17, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

She's a human, but due to her being concieved in the TARDIS it was possible to splice in Time Lord DNA (which would be dominant). So she has regenerative abilities, and presumably similar powers of the Time Lords; resistance to many types of poisons, toxins and radiations that would be lethal to humans. Simalarly, she would have an innate ability to navigate the Time Vortex, due to her being a child of the TARDIS and the DNA splice (This by the way answers the question of how she can fly the TARDIS better than even the Doctor - the TARDIS taught her!). Genetically, she's Human Plus - the Time Lord stuff is a mutation or corruption. Jedman67 00:35, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Current infobox pic
I am reluctant to start yet another multiple-incarnation infobox pic discussion, but I think I gotta problem with showing the girl in the spacesuit as Melody. I'm not entirely sure we know that yet. I don't think we know, for certain, that the girl in the space suit is the girl who regenerates in New York.

There are a couple of reasons I'm hesitating:


 * 1) Adult River, when she's investigating the moon suit, seems to have no memory of being in it. She's going to town, doing a full-on CSI investigation of it.  If she had been in the suit as the young Melody, we never see Alex Kingston recognise the suit in any way.  And that strikes me as very odd.
 * 2) We still have the unexplained photograph of Amy and an adolescent (Caucasian) Melody to explain. Since we've not yet seen Amy and the New York alleyway kid — who is pictured with Amy — there is still room to doubt that the moon suit kid is Melody.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'd be more comfortable with a shot from the New York alleyway than the moon suit. Let's Kill Hitler gives us a defintive answer on who the regenerating girl is; it doesn't necessarily identify the girl in the space suit with the same degree of certainty. 02:27:07 Mon 29 Aug 2011

Except You see the girl right after she forces herself out and is hiding from the Doctor after Amy is captured. She is most certainly the girl in the alleyway. Weather or not it's River is still dodgy to me, since Mels explained she first regenerated as a toddler, but in New York.

We see the little girl regenerate in New York. Mels states that the last time she regenerated, she ended up a toddler in the middle of New York. They're obviously the same person. Aliyoda 13:09, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * You're overanalyzing and splitting hairs here, Czech. TIA shows us that the girl in the spacesuit regenerated. LKH tells us that the regenerating girl was River. Little girl in spacesuit=little girl regenerating=River Song. As for River not recognizing the suit, consider: 1) She wouldn't remember much, because of the Silence aliens. River herself claimed that she didn't remember much of the time (Let's Kill Hitler). 2) River needed to keep her identity secret from the Doctor, so she pretended she had never seen the suit before. And 3) River lies. -- Bold  Clone  20:45, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * "Day of the Moon" (NOT "The Impossible Astronaut" shows us that the girl in the spacesuit regenerated. "Let's Kill Hitler" tells us that that the last time River/Melody regenerated prior to the "Mels" incarnation, it was in an alleyway in New York and she ended up as a toddler. Yes, everything points to the girl in the space suit being Melody/River. Yes, it'd be a heck of a coincidence for two different people to regenerate in New York alleyways after the destruction of every Time Lord except the Doctor. But nothing has conclusively proven that the girl played by Sydney Wade is in fact Melody. 96.236.40.161 05:28, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Incarnation time gap?
I think there's an issue with what we know of the timeline of River's various incarnations. We know that the little girl regenerated six months after the moon landing, i.e. early 1970. In Let's Kill Hitler, Mels said she regenerated into a toddler in New York. But Mels is roughly the same age as Amy, who was born in the mid eighties. So, there are about 15 years unaccounted for. I can see several options:
 * 1) This is a mistake by the writing team and the whole thing is a plot hole. (possible, but highly disappointing if true)
 * 2) The little girl is actually not River and the whole thing is a clever misdirection (possible though really unlikely in my opinion).
 * 3) There was an unknown incarnation (or more than one) - the girl turned into someone else, who stayed in New York then regenerated again in the mid-eighties into a toddler.
 * 4) Mels didn't age at the same rate as normal humans before meeting her parents in Leadworth.
 * 5) At some time before she got to Leadworth as a child, Mels time travelled 15 years forward.

I'd say 4 and 5 are the most likely, especially if you think that there was some intervention by the silence and/or Kovarian (which seems likely as well since she probably would have needed assistance to get to the UK as a little girl)

Thoughts, anyone?

78.105.193.5 08:32, August 29, 2011 (UTC)Eytan

I'd say it was most likely that Kovarian and/or the Silence brought her forward about 20 years to Leadworth, in order to let her befriend the known companions of the Doctor, thus increasing her chances of meeting him to kill him. Aliyoda 13:07, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, all of these are possible (except that it would have to be the early-90s for #3, not the mid-80s—Amy was born in 1989, which means she was a toddler around 1991-2).

And that means that we can't say that any of them are true, until we have some in-universe confirmation. It doesn't matter which one is most likely; none of them are verifiably true.

We also don't know that the little girl in the spacesuit was her first incarnation.

Also, she's never called "The Spacesuit", she's called "The Little Girl", both in the episodes and in the credits.

I'm going to edit the article to remove all of the speculation. --173.228.85.35 05:16, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

Tardis' "daughter"
As River "began" on the tardis, and the Tardis tells her that she is the child on the tardis isnt it more likely it is more a saying rather than an actual acknowlegement than as her as being its actual daughter? In Here comes the drums the doctor refers to Children of gallifrey would it not just be refering just to itself as her birthplace?


 * Since Melody was "conceived" on the TARDIS while inside the Time Vortex, she has Time Lord DNA. Which makes her a a "Child of the TARDIS". -- Loyal Companion
 * I disagree with the original poster here—in fact, I think the TARDIS probably had some active role in her specialness, and the fact that she seems to have an even stronger telepathic link with the TARDIS that the Doctor has to be explained somehow. However, that's really more speculation on my part than anything we can know for sure based on what we've heard, so we can't anything too definitive about what River or the TARDIS really meant by "Child of the TARDIS" in the article. --173.228.85.35 05:58, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the original poster here—in fact, I think the TARDIS probably had some active role in her specialness, and the fact that she seems to have an even stronger telepathic link with the TARDIS that the Doctor has to be explained somehow. However, that's really more speculation on my part than anything we can know for sure based on what we've heard, so we can't anything too definitive about what River or the TARDIS really meant by "Child of the TARDIS" in the article. --173.228.85.35 05:58, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Silence in America Section
The following appears on the main page "From his shocked reaction, she realised that from his perspective, it was their first kiss, and from her perspective she believed it to be their last (DW: Day of the Moon), although this may not be true as an older Doctor must still meet with River before she goes to the library"

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think River and Doctor 10 kiss at library. -- Future Companion


 * See under the Darillium section - a future doctor visits her before the library, giving her an upgraded version of his sonic screwdriver, so it's quite possible they kiss then. --Aliyoda 10:42, August 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * The 10th Doctor only met River once. -- Future Companion


 * Yes, this is a future doctor that will meet her just before the library, perhaps the 12th for example.
 * Aliyoda 07:57, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

Imprisonment Section
It has been stated that the man she kills is the Doctor. Why does this keep changing? -- TARDIS 50

Chronological order of appearances
Since the entire biography above is in chronological order, and this section contains long paragraphs on most of her appearances, it's effectively just a summary of the preceding section, and doesn't seem at all necessary.

I think if this were stripped down to the bare essentials, the list might be useful—possibly alongside a list of appearances in the order of the Doctor's timeline, for comparison. --173.228.85.35 05:24, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

My reasoning behind putting it in there is that the biography is long and unwieldy, and if all you want to do is find out River's timeline then sifting through it to find the nuggets of fact is fairly tedious. I figured that the info was suitably pared down to contextualise River's movements from episode to episode, but will edit down a bit more and reinstate (TBH, I'd much rather people either discuss or just edit entries rather than deleting them outright, but hey ho). --Mister Six 13:15, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

We had a policy a while back of removing Key Life Events sections because it just copied exactly what the biography section said, this is no different. If you find the biography section long and unweildy then look at the contents list at the top of the page, it lists all the headings/stories in the order in which River experienced them. --Revan\Talk 13:17, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

I just wnt to point out that I wasn't the one who deleted it. I'm just guessing here, but maybe someone else had been thinking of deleting it, saw my post with no replies to it, and decided that was enough for consensus in this case, since it goes along with a policy. I personally would have waited more than 7 hours for additional comments, or posted something like Revan's comment to justify removing it without consensus, but ultimately I think it was the right move.

<p style="margin-left: 40px; ">Meanwhile, I still think it's possible that River is a special case, and showing her timeline in both orders might actually be useful. But I won't add that if there's no support for it. --173.228.85.35 05:48, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Speculation removed
Some of this has already been dealt with above (Second Melody May Not Be Mels and Incarnation Time Gap). In each case, everyone agrees that we don't know the facts, and yet the article still included the speculation, so I removed it all. While I was in there, I also cleaned up a bunch of minor things—removing redundant sentences, fixing grammar, etc. But those are the only four speculations I removed. --173.228.85.35 05:38, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't know that the little girl is River's first incarnation. We have no idea what happened between disappearing from Demons Run in the 52nd century and being a little girl in American in the late 60s; she might have been taken directly to the early 60s and grown up from there, but that's just a guess, with no confirmation.
 * We don't know that Mels is her next incarnation after the Little Girl. Maybe she time-traveled from 1970 to 1991, or went into stasis, or stayed as a toddler for 21 years, or lived normally and then somehow lowered her age by 21 years, but maybe she lived for 21 years and then regenerated into a toddler in 1991. For all we know, she may have even regenerated again at some point during that 21 years, or traveled the universe for centuries using up multiple bodies (which she'd have to be if the Patience speculation is true—by the way, I'm assuming that one's fine because it's in the "Behind the Scenes" section). It doesn't matter which of these is most likely; all that matters is that we don't have any confirmation for any of them. All we can say is that Mels can't be any later than her 11th incarnation (because River has to have regenerations left over to use up for the Doctor).
 * "Spacesuit Melody" is a fan name for her; the character is only called "The Little Girl", both in-universe and in the credits.
 * We can't say, about who she killed, that "Conjecture is that this man is the Doctor." We haven't heard anyone conjecture that in-universe. Besides, the rest of that paragraph already gives the basis behind that conjecture (the screen showing that she's a murdered, followed by the Doctor's death date), which makes the implication at least as obvious as it is on-screen (and we don't really want to be any more obvious).


 * Sorry, but we do know that Mels is the incarnation immediately following the little girl. She explicitly states in Let's Kill Hitler that last time she regenerated she ended up a toddler in the middle of New York. The Little Girl regenerated in New York. Yes, ok, Steven Moffat hasn't shown us the end of that regeneration, but he expects us to use our brains - it's obvious what happened. We don't have 100% in-universe proof that the 11th Doctor wasn't abducted by the Daleks in Day of the Moon and replaced by a robot replica, but we don't edit pages to reflect this, we use our common sense.
 * Aliyoda 08:02, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Multiple people agree that we don't know. Everyone knows that she said she last regenerated into a toddler in the middle of New York. Everyone also knows that the little girl's regeneration was in 1970, which is 21 years too early. There's a gap that has to be explained either way. Nobody's saying that you theory is impossible, or even unlikely, just that it's not the only possible one, and therefore it's speculation to assert it as the truth.
 * It seems like most of the people who stated an opinion in the two threads above agreed that we don't actually know. Just because you disagree with that opinion doesn't mean you can ignore everyone else. If we want to put something in the article that isn't verifiable truth, we need a consensus that it's obvious, not just one person who believes it can't be any other way. --173.228.85.35 05:32, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well in that case we should remove all the "little girl" information from the article, as we don't have "verifiable truth" that she's River. We should also remove the fact that she's the one that kills the Doctor, as again, we don't have "verifiable truth". Aliyoda 10:02, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether you're being serious, or just being argumentative and troublesome. I see that you went and removed the sentence about the Doctor reading his death date in the Teselecta records, but I'll assume that's an honest attempt to improve the article.
 * The way that sentence was written a few days ago, it said that when the Doctor looked at the Teselecta data records to see who she had killed, he saw the record of his own death date. That obviously implies that she killed him, but no more than the episode itself does; it's just reporting the facts of the episode. That's perfectly reasonable, and belongs in the article. On the other hand, someone seems to have edited it to say (in somewhat awkward wording) that the record said directly that she killed him, which obviously isn't true. It would have been better to fix the wording than to remove it, but let's see if anyone else has any input.
 * For her being the little girl, we have Moffat's statements in Confidential and at least two interviews, and I know that comments from the production staff are allowed as a "secondary source" when they don't contradict in-universe material. Maybe it needs sourcing; you'd have to look at the policies or ask someone who knows better. If you really think the article needs to avoid making a commitment on her being the little girl, and can think of a way to edit it so that all the information is there but it's not absolutely certain that this is the same character, go for it.
 * For her incarnation numbering, we should try to come to a consensus here. Obviously many people think River is her third incarnation, while many others think we don't know. We can't just put that out-of-universe information into the article (except as a boring and pointless "Behind the Scenes" point), but we can try to write and organize the article so it puts the evidence across as well as the episodes themselves do, so the implication is as strong here as it is on-screen (no stronger, but no weaker). I tried to do that, but I was also trying to avoid rewriting too much, and I think the wording came out pretty clumsy (fortunately, Boblipton fixed that problem), and the result is probably not perfect. If you've got any ideas for how to make it better, that would be great.
 * It also might be worth looking at the articles on the Master or some other unnumbered Time Lords. I think most people reading the page on the Master can tell that the little boy staring into the schism and the Deca student are incredibly likely to be both still the first Master, but that it's never been said on-screen or on-page, and that fits exactly with what we know. --173.228.85.35 16:53, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * The way that sentence was written a few days ago, it said that when the Doctor looked at the Teselecta data records to see who she had killed, he saw the record of his own death date. That obviously implies that she killed him, but no more than the episode itself does; it's just reporting the facts of the episode. That's perfectly reasonable, and belongs in the article. On the other hand, someone seems to have edited it to say (in somewhat awkward wording) that the record said directly that she killed him, which obviously isn't true. It would have been better to fix the wording than to remove it, but let's see if anyone else has any input.
 * For her being the little girl, we have Moffat's statements in Confidential and at least two interviews, and I know that comments from the production staff are allowed as a "secondary source" when they don't contradict in-universe material. Maybe it needs sourcing; you'd have to look at the policies or ask someone who knows better. If you really think the article needs to avoid making a commitment on her being the little girl, and can think of a way to edit it so that all the information is there but it's not absolutely certain that this is the same character, go for it.
 * For her incarnation numbering, we should try to come to a consensus here. Obviously many people think River is her third incarnation, while many others think we don't know. We can't just put that out-of-universe information into the article (except as a boring and pointless "Behind the Scenes" point), but we can try to write and organize the article so it puts the evidence across as well as the episodes themselves do, so the implication is as strong here as it is on-screen (no stronger, but no weaker). I tried to do that, but I was also trying to avoid rewriting too much, and I think the wording came out pretty clumsy (fortunately, Boblipton fixed that problem), and the result is probably not perfect. If you've got any ideas for how to make it better, that would be great.
 * It also might be worth looking at the articles on the Master or some other unnumbered Time Lords. I think most people reading the page on the Master can tell that the little boy staring into the schism and the Deca student are incredibly likely to be both still the first Master, but that it's never been said on-screen or on-page, and that fits exactly with what we know. --173.228.85.35 16:53, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * For her incarnation numbering, we should try to come to a consensus here. Obviously many people think River is her third incarnation, while many others think we don't know. We can't just put that out-of-universe information into the article (except as a boring and pointless "Behind the Scenes" point), but we can try to write and organize the article so it puts the evidence across as well as the episodes themselves do, so the implication is as strong here as it is on-screen (no stronger, but no weaker). I tried to do that, but I was also trying to avoid rewriting too much, and I think the wording came out pretty clumsy (fortunately, Boblipton fixed that problem), and the result is probably not perfect. If you've got any ideas for how to make it better, that would be great.
 * It also might be worth looking at the articles on the Master or some other unnumbered Time Lords. I think most people reading the page on the Master can tell that the little boy staring into the schism and the Deca student are incredibly likely to be both still the first Master, but that it's never been said on-screen or on-page, and that fits exactly with what we know. --173.228.85.35 16:53, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * It also might be worth looking at the articles on the Master or some other unnumbered Time Lords. I think most people reading the page on the Master can tell that the little boy staring into the schism and the Deca student are incredibly likely to be both still the first Master, but that it's never been said on-screen or on-page, and that fits exactly with what we know. --173.228.85.35 16:53, September 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't meaning to be "argumentative and troublesome", sorry if it came across that way. I was just trying to say that we have the same level of proof for the little girl being river and the fact that she killed the Doctor as we do for the numbering of her incarnations - implications and common sense (although I didn't know Steven Moffat had stated in confidential that the little girl was River, so I take that once back). Do you know what episode of confidential that was in? Because we probably should add that as a source if there's no direct in-universe confirmation.
 * Aliyoda 11:02, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's mostly my fault; my initial impression was that you'd removed a perfectly good sentence just to make a point, and when I realized that what you'd actually removed was a sentence tha had been edited so it was no longer true, I should have removed that whole paragraph…
 * Anyway, I'm guessing it was the Confidential for Let's Kill Hitler, but I'll have to rewatch that (then, if it's not there, the previous episodes, and the various external Moffat interviews I've recorded locally, found on Combom, etc.) to make sure. I hope it's still recorded…
 * However, we also have a lot more in-universe evidence that the little girl was some incarnation of Melody Pond than we do that she was explicitly the first incarnation, or the one before Mels. It's mostly circumstantial evidence, but it's still a lot more than the fact that she regenerated in New York. For example:
 * However, we also have a lot more in-universe evidence that the little girl was some incarnation of Melody Pond than we do that she was explicitly the first incarnation, or the one before Mels. It's mostly circumstantial evidence, but it's still a lot more than the fact that she regenerated in New York. For example:
 * However, we also have a lot more in-universe evidence that the little girl was some incarnation of Melody Pond than we do that she was explicitly the first incarnation, or the one before Mels. It's mostly circumstantial evidence, but it's still a lot more than the fact that she regenerated in New York. For example:


 * She can regenerate. It was strongly hinted that Melody could regenerate in AGMGTW, and directly shown in LKH. While she could theoretically be Jenny, a future Doctor, the Master, a Time Lord who escaped the War by being outside the universe, a member of some as-yet-unknown species who can regenerate, or maybe even a Type 103 TARDIS, but most of these seem a lot more implausible than the fact that someone who was in New York in 1970 would be in New York again in 1991.
 * The narrative juxtaposition of the first TARDIS pregnancy scan of Amy implies that he thinks she might be Amy's daughter. (The details: About 43:20 into DotM, as the Doctor is pulling down the display screen so that he can see it but Amy can't, he says, "This little girl, it's all about her, who was she?" At 43:35, he looks up to read the scanner; at 43:45, we see him worried, and it's revealed that it's displaying Amy's inconclusive pregnancy scan.) It's possible that he's wrong about the connection and just gets lucky and finds out the right information anyway (similar things happened a few times in early EDA novels, and to some extent in the very next episode after this), but that would be a hell of a coincidence. It's also possible that the whole sequence is misleading, and his mention of the little girl was completely unrelated to his scanning Amy (they had just been talking about her thinking she was pregnant a bit earlier)—but if it's misleading, it's deliberately so.
 * She had a picture in her room of Amy holding a baby, presumably from A Good Man Goes to War, which implies that she is that baby. Maybe Madame Kovarian planted that picture on an unrelated little girl to make the Doctor and Amy later mistakenly think the little girl was Melody, or to make the little girl think Amy was her mother, or something like that, but otherwise, nobody in 1969 would have that picture.
 * Melody is clearly connected with the Silence, given Let's Kill Hitler, and the litle girl was clearly held by the Silence. Again, not proof (because Gardner is also clearly connected with the Silence in a similar way, and he's not Melody Pond), but more evidence.
 * The Teselecta records tell us that it was some incarnation of Melody in the spacesuit that killed the Doctor. That doesn't prove that nobody but incarnations of Melody ever wore that spacesuit. And it's not even certain that it's the same suit (hundreds of people have worn Apollo/Skylab spacesuits, including the Doctor himself in at least two novels).


 * Anyway, none of these are iron-clad proof, but the weight of the evidence is a lot stronger than just "Mels says she once regenerated in New York, and the little girl regenerated in New York".
 * If all of that doesn't add up to enough, then we're in trouble, because I have no idea how anyone could write a River Song article that includes all of the information on the little girl without saying that she was River, without some kind of horribly clumsy verbiage explaining why she's probably River and therefore being included in this article. --173.228.85.35 09:25, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I just found the Confidential and re-watched it, and it's not there, at least not in the discussion about the regeneration sequence, which is where I expected it to be. Time to start scanning televised interviews… Meanwhile, Moffat does establish quite clearly in that interview that Mels actually regenerates into Alex Kingston, not into River Song. :) --173.228.85.35 10:28, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I found one video interview and one printed interview where Moffat confirms that the little girl is River. Since it's easier to cite print: here. I'm not sure how to add that to the article, but I'll try; if I give up, hopefully someone else will use it. --173.228.85.35 10:38, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I found one video interview and one printed interview where Moffat confirms that the little girl is River. Since it's easier to cite print: here. I'm not sure how to add that to the article, but I'll try; if I give up, hopefully someone else will use it. --173.228.85.35 10:38, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I found one video interview and one printed interview where Moffat confirms that the little girl is River. Since it's easier to cite print: here. I'm not sure how to add that to the article, but I'll try; if I give up, hopefully someone else will use it. --173.228.85.35 10:38, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Accommodation of first regeneration
Please desist from removing the comment about it being unknown where or who she lived with when she was Mels. Wouldn't Amy and Rory find it a bit odd never meeting Mels' supposed parents. I understand that speculation about her living with adoptive parents is not allowed, however the readers have to know that we can see there is an irregularity, but we don't know the answer, however we are AWARE.

Thank you.

Child of the TARDIS not an alias
The folks who put together those "also known as" lists in the infoboxes tend to take things a bit too literally. At no point in the episode is the name "Child of the TARDIS" ever applied to River. She describes herself as such. That's not a name. Please remove it as it looks silly, thanks. 70.64.177.79 19:53, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, Melody Williams isn't an alias either. Rory refers to her as that but Amy replies saying she's Melody Pond, as Melody Williams sounds like a geography teacher. And throughout her life she is constantly Melody Pond, hence River Song, as opposed to Bill Song or something. Aliyoda 22:01, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's ridiculously silly, but it's also consistent with most of the other "also called" lists on this wiki. Rory is also known as "The Pretty One", Donna is also known as "Supertemp"—basically, any descriptive phrase or one-time joking nickname ever used for any character is considered an alias. If you want to change that, I'd suggest getting some consensus over on the Panopticon to define what does and doesn't count as an alias and then, once a decision is reached, fix this article along with the rest of them. --173.228.85.35 09:39, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a bit of research, and actually, it's pretty much exclusively characters from the new series (and Torchwood) who list these ridiculous aliases; characters from the classic series (and novels, etc.) have perfectly reasonable lists (e.g., Sarah Jane's article lists actual aliases like "Sarah Bland", but not random things she's been called like "Old Girl" or "The Human Female").
 * Anyway, there's already a relatively recent Panopticon thread on this at Forum:Notable Aliases (which seems to have led to the infobox being changed to say "Also Called" insead of "Notable Aliases", but not to have led to an agreement on policy), so I reopened that thread instead of creating a new one. If you want to add comments on why River is not "also known as Child of the TARDIS", etc., that seems like the best place. --173.228.85.35 10:06, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway, there's already a relatively recent Panopticon thread on this at Forum:Notable Aliases (which seems to have led to the infobox being changed to say "Also Called" insead of "Notable Aliases", but not to have led to an agreement on policy), so I reopened that thread instead of creating a new one. If you want to add comments on why River is not "also known as Child of the TARDIS", etc., that seems like the best place. --173.228.85.35 10:06, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway, there's already a relatively recent Panopticon thread on this at Forum:Notable Aliases (which seems to have led to the infobox being changed to say "Also Called" insead of "Notable Aliases", but not to have led to an agreement on policy), so I reopened that thread instead of creating a new one. If you want to add comments on why River is not "also known as Child of the TARDIS", etc., that seems like the best place. --173.228.85.35 10:06, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Citing the Little Girl's identity as River
As described in at least two sections above ("Is River the Little Girl?" and "Speculation Removed"), there's good, but possibly not conclusive, on-screen evidence that the Little Girl is River Song. There is definitely conclusive behind-the-scenes evidence. Aliyoda suggested that we need to cite that, or it looks like we're stating something as a definite fact just because it's implied. That makes sense to me, so I hunted down a citation.

I found a few interviews with Moffat where he confirms their identity. I chose this one both because it's citable (it's printed, rather than video, and it's from a reasonably reliable source who isn't known to fabricate interviews), and because it contains a clear, impossible-to-misinterpret statement ("…we do already know that the little girl was River and that she can regenerate", in the answer to the next-to-last question on the page).

I'm not sure I got the format right, or that I put the reference in the right place, so I'd appreciate someone taking a look at it. --173.228.85.35 11:21, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Trimming the Fat
I have been working very hard at editing the River Song page in an effort to control its length. She's a wonderful character, beautifully written and played, which means there is a strong tendency for people to add in a lot of details about her that do not, in my opinion, belong on her page -- things that might well go onto a page about a one-shot character, but which would result in the already massive River Song article becoming unmanageably long.

As many of us are aware, there is a strong minority who have been calling for her to be split into three pages, one for each known incarnation. That would not be irrational, but I feel that for anyone seeking for information, it's more convenient to look through one page rather than three. This means, however, that we need to be pretty ruthless in trimming any fat and I have been working to knock out paragraphs, sentences, clauses, and even longer words -- the last is a natural tendency in my writing as I feel shorter words are more telling.

If you think I have cut something that really affects a reader's understanding of the character, please, by all means let us try to hold a rational conversation on the matter. We are all trying to make this wiki better. If you think I am taking the wrong course, please let me know. I have reached the point where each further trim forces me to examine much of the article lest I trim muscle and bone with the fat. It's an interesting exercise in editing for me, even though none of this is properly about me.

Perhaps this belongs on a blog entry, but I think this is a better place for it. Lots of people care about River Song. No one gives a hoot about me, nor should they, and this is far more likely to be read here than on any blog entry I might make.Boblipton 01:03, September 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * What you're really saying, if I understand it, is that it's time that we begin treating River like a "main character". We don't have a detailed summary of every episode, novel, etc. that Rose, Jack, or the Brig appeared in on their pages, because the whole point is to give as much understanding of the character as possible, as clearly as possible. And River ought to be handled the same way.--173.228.85.35 06:09, September 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I hadn't thought about that. Isn't that a different matter entirely, a difference of quality rather than quantitity?  I'm certainly not opposed. Boblipton 11:51, September 6, 2011 (UTC)