Talk:Clara Oswald

Lis Sladen Tribute?
Is there a source for Clara being named after Lis? Has Moffat or anyone in the cast/crew said so in an interview recently? I know a lot of people were speculating it after her name was leaked, but I haven't heard any confirmation about it. 75.141.226.87talk to me 05:37, December 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * (Reply) I think it's blatantly obvious Steven named her so in memory of Sladen (he probably wrote Clara's Character around the time of Sladen's death 88.104.219.234talk to me 16:35, December 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * That's funny, I think it's blatantly obvious she's not named after Sladen. If I wanted to honor someone's memory, I would use a more recognizable name. How many NuWho viewers know Sladen's middle name, anyway? Shambala108 ☎  17:11, December 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I didn't know Lis's middle name was Clara until I saw people speculating the name was a homage. The timing gives weight to that theory, but it certainly doesn't prove anything. 75.141.226.87talk to me 01:05, December 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * "Elisabeth" would be a little too obvious. What does it matter how many NuWho viewers know it, anyway? Homages are often based on "little-known" facts. Like her birth and death dates. -- Noneofyourbusiness ☎  00:23, December 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * You're one of the only two people I've ever heard us the term "NuWho". I've found that it's used dis-respetively and suggest that you don't. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 00:42, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

Speculation: Clara and Oswin
At this point it's only speculation that Clara Oswin Oswald and Oswin Oswald are the same person. In a show where we have gangers, meta-crises, identical relatives, etc, Clara and Oswin being the same person is one possibility. I think there should be a separate page for Clara Oswin Oswald until and unless it's proven that Clara and Oswin are the same person and not, for example, twins or triplets or gangers or what have you. 75.141.226.87talk to me 18:49, December 25, 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly stated in the episode "The snowmen" that her name is Clara Oswin Oswald and she is the woman who has died twice.
 * That's The Doctor's theory, not a fact. He's been incorrect in his theories and assumptions plenty of times before. 75.141.226.87talk to me 20:07, December 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with above, they are the same person and should be treated as one person until proven otherwise.


 * Clearly they are closely related - the souffles, the same dialogue. Until we know how the three are related, I think it better to have one page for them all. -- Beardouk ☎  06:28, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone see the aforementioned comment similar to harry potter? I'm sure it's not a reference, but the whole "The girl who died twice" "The boy who lived" amuses me. -- Stinky Troll  05:50, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Human or Dalek?
Which species should be entered into the info box? Although she is a Dalek during the course of the episode, she was not only originally human, but this is how she describes herself, even AFTER the Doctor reveals the truth to her.Geek Mythology ☎  22:23, September 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Whenever you have a character who "converts" to another species, the infobox species variable should be set to the original species.   23:17: Sat 01 Sep 2012

Behind the scenes?
Should there be a behind the scenes section referencing the fact Coleman is playing the new companion and that the episode was designed to spark debate over whether Oswin Oswald is that new companion? Of course once the Christmas special airs this article will undoubtedly be updated, but it's a long time till then. 70.72.211.35talk to me 16:28, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, since it hasn't happened yet, any mention of the next companion is against the spoiler policy, so no, not yet. Shambala108 ☎  16:38, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Jenna was featured in the televised preview clip for the 2012 Christmas Special which aired after The Angels Take Manhattan, so is her reappearance still considered a spoiler?Mewiet ☎  20:25, October 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. -- Tybort (talk page) 20:27, October 14, 2012 (UTC)

I think Oswin and Clara are the same,any one who disagrees deserves to be exterminated

Alice Montague
It was the maid whose name was Alice; I don't recall Clara's first name being mentioned when she was in Governess mode. 81.111.14.92talk to me 11:05, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

Why a single article? / Splitting article
Did I miss a discussion? Exactly why are we covering Oswin and Clara on the same article? User:Digifiend moved the page on 26 December Move log for Oswin Oswald here. Stating:
 * "Clara and Oswin are the same person.... but how that's possible I cannot explain, as she's now died twice.)"

Given that even he states that he can't explain I think that the pages should be separate until we have further information. Currently the article contains fairly vague statements like "seemingly in another life" for example. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:02, December 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. It won't be that difficult to combine them later if necessary. After all, we just did that with the Master page and it was much bigger :) Shambala108 ☎  15:32, December 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * I brought this up earlier, but there wasn't much interest in having separate Clara and Oswin pages. I agree that they should be separate, though. As I said before, in a show with gangers, identical relatives, meta-crises, etc, it's mere speculation that they are the same person. We're not even told definitively in canon that they are the same person, all we have is The Doctor making his own speculations that they are, and his theories have been wrong plenty of times in the past as well. 75.141.226.87talk to me 01:09, December 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * What about one article with "tabs" for each "incarnation"? The main page can be general info. Tab 1 "Asylum of the Daleks: Oswin Oswald", Tab 2 "The Snowmen: Clara Oswin Oswald", Tab 3: (The next version), and so on..... That way we can have separate articles and one article at the same time.

--14:09, December 28, 2012 (UTC) Loyal Companion
 * No, tabbing an entire article is pointless. You may as well just split the article rather than doing that. It makes it harder for both editors (who now basically have three separate articles on the same page one after the other) and readers (many of whom will only see the first tab if they don't notice it). -- Snorlax Monster  14:16, December 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Articles have now been split back up into Clara Oswald and back to Oswin Oswald with the latter reverted back to the last revision before Digifiend‎'s move.
 * Both articles have also been move locked. However in the future if we find these articles need to be the same they can be merged back into one another. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:08, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Did the third incarnation of Clara Oswin Oswald end up anywhere (the one from the end of The Snowmen)? It appears this content was lost in the split. -- Snorlax Monster  16:49, December 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * That was one I wasn't really sure about. She's not given a name at the end of Snowmen so naming the article introduces problems.
 * Any content - that she takes a shortcut through a graveyard and looks like Oswin/Clara can surely wait until we have an actual name for the character. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:57, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it too speculative to call the third version just Clara (no last name)? We do know Sophie Miller-Sheen was credited as "Clara's Friend" and she only appeared in present-day setting with the third JLC character. Speaking of, the Clara's Friend page still links to 1892 Clara, so that needs to be reworded or removed. 75.141.226.87talk to me 20:59, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

In other words, all we know of this "modern" Clara is that, according to the credits, her name is "Clara" and that she lives in "modern times" (Could be 2010s or 2020s) and that she has a friend. Aright, I'm gonna made the page name under Clara (Modern times). The out-of-universe name is fine here, as that is how these are ususally titled. If we can think of a better name then one day we can rename it. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 21:08, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

Chronological
Just wondering why the page is set out separating the two different Claras by episode appearance, surely they should be chronological, in which case it would be Victiorain Clara before space age Oswin?? Geek Mythology ☎  18:09, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

Lots of speculation running around here. The most interesting one is if Clara Oswin Oswald and Oswin Oswald are the same being or not. And just to make the debate even more delightful, just who was that doppleganger in the graveyard at the end of "The Snowmen"? I think they all are, and here's my take.

Dalek Oswin had hacked into the Dalek systems. The Daleks are capable of "temporal displacement." My speculative thought is that the doomed Oswin (who considers herself to still be human) accessed that capability to transport herself out of the now shieldless Asylum but things didn't quite go as planned. While I think she managed to undo her conversion, I think she also inadvertently scattered multiple copies of herself throughout time. That would make all of them the same person and making a single page very appropriate. It also gives the Doctor an interesting puzzle to solve. 24.127.246.99talk to me 18:51, December 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Here at TARDIS we do not allow speculation. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 19:22, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing with your take, and I agree there should be one page for multiple Claras, just as there is one page for Timelord's with multiple incarnations, that doesn't really answer my question.


 * Until we hear otherwise we should assume the various Clara's are in sync with the normal universe, and so should be documented in chronological order:

Geek Mythology ☎  19:00, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Victiorian (Clara),
 * Modern (Cemetary), then
 * Future (Dalek)


 * Chronological order doesn't necessarily work in a show about time travel. If it did, we'd have to talk about 1960s Melody Pond before infant Melody Pond. In this case, narrative order works best (earlier episodes first), since it's the order that Moffat intended the viewer to experience the character. -- 24.231.182.206talk to me 04:11, December 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not the narrative order, actually. It's the character's personal timeline. Otherwise, River's page would start with her death, then jump back to the Byzantium, then further back at the Pandorica, then all the way back to her birth, then forwards to her marriage, and so on. However, as far as Clara, as it stands now, we don't really know which came first in her experience, or even if both characters even share one experience. It's hard to stay organized when the universe is a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey... stuff.

User:SmallerOnTheOutside ☎  December 27, 2012

I believe that in the case of this article it is best to list it by order by the Doctor's timeline. Otherwaise we'll get remarks like "...the Doctor realised that she was the same person that he had met before" and such that wont make any sense without the section beforehand. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 14:35, December 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Clara's own viewpoint is irrelevant because she doesn't have one; she doesn't seem to remember her other incarnations, so there's no perception for her that they're part of her past or future (they could have happened in any order, as far as she's aware). There's only the Doctor's viewpoint and the universe's viewpoint. The universe's viewpoint is irrelevant, or an article about the Doctor would begin with him almost crashing into the Big Bang (in Castrovalva, etc.) and end with him seeing the last humans in Utopia. So only the Doctor's viewpoint matters in this instance. -- Rowan Earthwood ☎  02:07, December 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, without speculating, it does definitely seem as though she doesn't remember him. At the moment, there's nothing to prove otherwise. (Except maybe the fact that modern-day Clara stopped exactly at her own grave site. Either this was because she remembers or, just by coincidence, in which case it would be surprising that she didn't notice her own name on a headstone.) It's also possible that, even if the different incarnations don't have the same viewpoint, there is one original Clara that later stems into the other ones or even that each incarnation is created after the last one dies. Now I know that this is all speculation. Just putting everything on the table. Generally, character articles are written in order of the characters' own experiences, NOT the Doctor's experience (ie. River Song) and articles on things like places are written chronologically, which is also sort of the viewpoint of the place.  If we are going with the possibility that each incarnation never experienced the lives of the other ones, then they should be listen in the order in which they existed, which, obviously, means chronologically. Or, if they truly are separate viewpoints, then I agree that the page should be separated as this is different from, say, different incarnations of a Time Lord (ie. Romana) as they're different people.

--SmallerOnTheOutside ☎  02:50, December 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Technically the universe doesn't have a "viewpoint", but as far as non-time travellers are concerned, things happen in a certain order. If someone were to see the whole of the universe (Who isn't the doctor) they would see time travellers events out of order. That is why the page for each individual character is written from their own individual perspective, with means that because different people (the doctor and River Song for example) experience different events in different orders, so too their wiki pages document those events in different orders.


 * As Clara(s) have experinced events in different orders to the Doctor, then so too should her wiki page document them in her own subjective chronological order.

Geek Mythology ☎  12:06, December 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the issue is that "Clara"'s point of view of the order of things in unkown. Only the Doctor's view is know, so it should be sorted by his. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 15:18, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Species
It seems to me, since she has three different lives, that Clara is a Time Lady who survived the Time War. --BNSF1995, Alive since 1995 04:25, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but the talk page is for discussing the article itself, not theories. If you like, you can take this discussion to Howling:The Howling, which, I should caution you, does contain spoilers. Shambala108 ☎  05:24, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly like River Song vs Melody Pond last year
This happened last year - editors were pretty sure of themselves when they weren't allowing River Song and Melody Pond to have the same wiki entry. I can see what you mean about Clara Oswald and Oswin Oswald having a separate entry but I think it's safe to just assume that they're the same person... for now. We can change it later on but I think there's a very high chance that they're the same person.

88.104.219.234talk to me 16:39, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

(TheRedGoldfish - just not logged in)
 * It wasn't that editors were sure River and Melody were different people, it was that at the time there was no proof in the aired episodes that they were the same. That is what matters in this wiki. For Clara/Oswin, all we have is that the Doctor thinks they're the same (and he's been wrong before) and that two of them have died. If we have to "assume" they're the same, then it becomes speculation, which is not allowed on in-universe pages.


 * Incidentally, it's much easier to merge separate articles than to split out one article into many. That is why it's probably better to separate for now. Shambala108 ☎  17:10, December 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, you're consfused.
 * Speculation is when you presume the Doctor is wrong. It'd be like saying "Yeah, the Doctor said that this is just Strax brought back but... Maybe he's lying."
 * If the Doctor says something - and there's no proof or suggestion that he may be wrong then we automatically presume he's right until proven other wise.
 * On that hand, these pages still may need to be separated. The same way that there are diffrent pages for diffrent timelord regenerations, these "lives" of Clara may need to be documented on seperate pages, and then maybe one big one. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 01:34, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no need to insult someone just because you think they disagree with you. I'm not confused, you are misunderstanding my point. Would it help if you ignored my parenthetical comment? Shambala108 ☎  01:47, December 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * I dodn't insult you, I just said you were confused, a step back from saying that you were wrong. Also, if you read forward, you will note that I agree with you to the point that these need to be separated. And, no it doesn't bacause it still has the bit about "The Doctor thinks they're the same... We have to presume they're the same..." OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 01:51, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

Snowmen
The year of the snowmen incident is incorrect. Should be 1842, not 1892.


 * No. It is right. The teaser is 1842, the episode is 50 years later 1892.

--22:44, December 27, 2012 (UTC)Loyal Companion

Clara (Victorian)'s Date of Birth
It says on her tombstone that Clara Oswin Oswald was born on November 23rd 1866. Should this piece of information be included in her biography or is it speculative? I mean, I guess it IS possible for that version of Clara not to have actually been born then, if we're going with theories like the original Clara at age 26 was splintered throughout time for example. Any thoughts? -SmallerOnTheOutside ☎  01:29, December 28, 2012 (UTC) [edit conflict]
 * What? Speculation? How does no one one on this one page understand the word "speculaltion"?
 * Speculation would be to say that the date on the tombstone was wrong. Speculation would be to implant some "she's sprinkled through time" theory. Speculation would be to say anything past what was said in the episode, or to say that anything said was a lie.


 * In short, yeah. You can use the date on the page, just find a spot. :) OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 01:40, December 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * That is my opinion as well; I was just checking if there were any objections. I agree with you completely, but maybe someone would correct me. SmallerOnTheOutside ☎  02:22, December 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * If you can see it on the TV screen then it's not speculation. It may change later, but right now that's what we know. There should be no edits made based on theories of who/what she is, only based on the narrative of the stories. Hope this helps! Shambala108 ☎  01:37, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

The Same?
Look, I want everyone to stop removing any suggestion that they are the same.

The Doctor said they were the same person somehow. It's speculation to try and pick out how. It's speculation to try and guess who else might exist. But most of all; it is speculation to suggest that he was, in any way, wrong.

Thus, each of the three "Clara" pages now has a description in it's intro of the Doctor claiming they were all the same. Please do not remove it. Please do not change it to say "They all looked the same" or whatever, please just leave "She was one of the three known people that the Doctor claimed were one in the same" alone. It is true, it is justified; it needs to be there. Please stop removing it. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 00:27, December 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * No one is adding that they are the same. They are adding they look the same. You are the only person adding anything near the what you don't want people to say. MM/ Want to talk? 00:35, December 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * OS25, do you mean "one and the same?"
 * Speak of the Devil, 80.177.152.215 got to it before me by about 10 seconds.SmallerOnTheOutside ☎  00:52, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

"One and the same" is just a long and interesting way of saying = "the same."

And no, I am trying to add that the Doctor claimed that they were the same person, or perhaps just "the same". That is true. That is important. That keeps getting removed. It's annoying. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 01:40, December 29, 2012 (UTC)