Talk:River Song

22 APRIL 2011
This section is a bit confusing. The alternative timeline for this date is mentioned first ("22 APRIL 2011") and then, in the "SILENCE IN AMERICA", there is another description of the events occurring with this date and the Doctor's death. I'm not sure how best to describe two different versions of what happened on this particular day at Lake Silencio but I think they should be closer together, in adjacent paragraphs. And then, at the end of the article, the section "ALTERNATE TIMELINE" repeats the version of events of "22 APRIL 2011".

Also, following these sections is "THE OPENING OF THE PANDORICA" when, in the Doctor's timeline, this event occurs before the events at Lake Silencio which is described earlier. Badwolff ☎  22:24, May 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * Umm, no? Why should it? It's like this because this the order this happened to River. She "kills" the Doctor, then her older self sees herself at the lakeside "killing" the Doctor while she stops Amy and Rory from interfering, and then she sees the Pandorica open. The Wedding of River Song even outright says that the River that isn't inside the astronaut suit is from the future relative to the one that is. -- Tybort (talk page) 22:35, May 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * Umm, then why is the alternative timeline presented both at the beginning and at the end of the article? Badwolff ☎  22:42, May 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * I wasn't really referring to the alternate timeline section when I said that. Just how River's life was ordered. I do see that alternate timeline does indeed repeat 22 April 2011 at least in part though. -- Tybort (talk page) 22:49, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

Aliases
Why have Mels and Melody Malone been removed from River's aliases? I can perhaps see why "Mels" is gone, since it's a nickname of Melody (and this wiki doesn't recognize the sources regarding "Zucker"), but there is an entire book where she goes by the alias Melody Malone for months while running the Angels Detective Agency in 1930s New York. It's not just a nickname or something she titled her in-universe book, she used it as an actual alias. Mewiet ☎  23:33, September 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the name of the book where this happens? Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  00:20, September 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * The Angel's Kiss: A Melody Malone Mystery. This is the only name she uses for herself in this book and instructs others to refer to her as it as well, even though she admits to the first Rock Railton copy that Malone isn't really her last name (and jokes that whether Melody is her first is complicated, but never offers him an alternative). There are several quotes I can provide if you need them. Mewiet ☎  16:10, September 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * No need for quotes, I checked the page and it seems reasonable as an alias. However, I checked the page history, and Melody Malone was removed, along with several other so-called aliases, by User:CzechOut. I think his reasoning was that Melody Pond is the "main" alias, as the infobox states, and that maybe he doesn't see Melody Malone as a main enough alias to qualify for the infobox. We'll probably want to get his input on whether this particular one can be added back. Shambala108 ☎  16:33, September 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this with me. The main infobox says "main aliases", hence my confusion. Since it was plural I figured it wasn't restricted to a single or topmost alias, but the most prominent aliases, if there should be more than one. I checked other pages for comparison (to see if they had been restricted to one as well) and noticed the Sarah Jane Smith page still lists multiple aliases under "main aliases," for example. (Granted, I'm not sure how prominently she used all of those aliases since I'm not nearly as familiar with her history in Classic Who and non-SJA TV spinoff media.) So that's why I was wondering why River's page had been restricted to only one alias. Since she's not referred to as anything other than Melody Malone for the entirety of a valid prose source, I feel like that one should qualify as a main alias. Mewiet ☎  18:30, September 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all I wouldn't use other infoboxes as guides. The alias section of infoboxes is one of the most misused sections of the wiki. And the plural aliases allows for more than one, but doesn't require more than one.
 * So the main issue we have here is just how important/prominent/main the Melody Malone alias is. If it's only in one story, then it's pretty questionable, but I can ask Czechout what he thinks, since he's the one who removed it. I'll look into it and let you know. Shambala108 ☎  18:43, September 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I didn't realize that about the infoboxes. I'll note that for future reference. (Or lack thereof, so to speak.) I really appreciate your help. Sometimes it seems like questions on the talk pages don't get noticed, so thank you! Mewiet ☎  18:48, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

Winter Frost Fair
According to the section "Return to Demons' Run", River went to the Frost Fair for her birthday with a Doctor. It happened after the battle of the Demons' Run, from her point of view, and before The Angels Take Manhattan, because she's still in jail, but have we got other information to put the event in that particular section, other than in "Undated events"? HarveyWallbanger ☎  15:02, December 15, 2013 (UTC)

Selfish?
The sentence " River was rather selfish since she was willing to sacrifice the entire Universe in order to protect the Doctor." seems rather problematic. She was trying to save both the Universe and the Doctor. Concerning how many times the doctor has saved the Universe, the Doctor's death is itself a threat to the Universe. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ☎  14:07, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's a violation of Tardis:Neutral point of view. Feel free to remove it, or I can get to it later. Shambala108 ☎  14:24, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Added one word to intro
I changed the wording of the introduction slightly to read "third known incarnation." Upon reviewing the episodes we do not know for certain that the "astronaut child" incarnation was the first incarnation of River. We do not know that she regenerated into the Mels incarnation. The only direct link we know is from Mels to River. At no point is River referred to as a third incarnation. There is plenty of wiggle room for another incarnation of Melody to exist. For example (and this is pure speculation) we don't know that Kovarian didn't invoke a regeneration in Melody early on to confirm that she could regenerate. 68.146.52.234talk to me 15:08, May 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree with the idea of what you say, but the wording still needs to be tweaked. From the in-universe perspective, we can't really call something "unknown" or "unnamed", because in the majority of cases, someone in the DWU will know the information. In other words, we can't write as if it's from our perspective, but rather from those of the DWU. To make a messy comment more clear, I'll use your example. It's highly likely that Kovarian would know how many incarnations of River there are, so saying River is the "third known" contradicts the fact that someone else does know. And in fact, River probably knows how many incarnations she has had.


 * I hope this is clear. It's clear in my head but not so easy to put into words. At any rate, I agree that we have no guarantee that River is the third (unless someone can provide a valid source), but we need to change the wording. Shambala108 ☎  15:28, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Major changes to the chronology
A pair of details in the chronological order of River's biography are not proper, to me.


 * The "Easter Island" and "Jim the Fish" adventures are *dated*: they happen
 * after First Night, when the Doctor explains to her how to use the diary
 * before The Impossible Astronaut, when River talks about them
 * So they should go in the "Imprisonment" subsection.


 * The two pieces of information in the "Return to the Battle of Demon's Run" section are *undated*. River visits Demon's Run:
 * after First Night (she has a vortex manipulator and she has visited the TARDIS, since she knows the Doctor's cot)
 * before the "birthday with Stevie Wonder" ->
 * The birthday was:
 * after Demons' Run
 * after the "Silence in America", or after the Pandorica (as suggested in your timeline): unless she's lying, she acknowledges she's already met her father before he knew her identity. (If she was lying, it's even worse: it's just after Demon's Run).
 * before Angels in Manhattan, since she's in jail.
 * So it's a fuzzy range of time: in the best case after "Silence in America" e before "A pardoned woman" (no indications about the Eternity Clock and the Byzantium), in the worst case between First Night (in "Imprisonment") and "A pardoned woman". They should go in the Undated events...

... unless I am missing something, and with River Song it is easy. That's why I am writing here! --HarveyWallbanger ☎  23:25, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

Appearing again
Does anyone know if she's ever going to appear again??? It was indicated that she only traveled with the 11th Doctor and has never been mentioned by the 12th Doctor. That final scene in Name of (how did she even appear psychically if she was just a computer program anyway???) felt like a final goodbye to her character but I can't find anything saying either way. I mean they COULD still bring her back as one of her past selves before her death but does anyone know if they're going to do that or not???--WarGrowlmon18 ☎  21:13, July 19, 2015 (UTC)


 * Whether or not she ever appears again, per Tardis:Spoiler policy, on this wiki we do not discuss anything about upcoming episodes. Shambala108 ☎  01:28, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

Soooo...
How long until someone locks down this page? lol OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 14:35, September 2, 2015 (UTC)

River's Sexuality
In Husbands of River Song, she was revealed to have had (at least) two wives, so please stop removing that fact from the page. She is bisexual, and I'm pretty sure Steven Moffat (or one of the writers) has said this in the interview. I'm bisexual, I really hate seeing this ignored because I was really happy to learn she was like me in terms of sexuality. 71.163.147.18talk to me 21:19, January 1, 2016 (UTC)

River's appearance in Journey's End
For some reason, although I've tried adding her appearance in Journey's End, somebody always removes it. I feel like (although her appearance was only in a flashback when Davros was asking the Doctor how many people had died in his name) this still counts as an appearance. Others who appeared in the same flashback, such as Chantho, Robert MacLeish, Colin Skinner and Ursula Blake, have had their appearance added to their list.

However, a great deal of other people, including Jabe, Lynda Moss, Astrid Peth and Luke Rattigan, have not had it added to their list of appearances.

Should "Professor" be part of the boldfaced lead and should River Song be put in quotations marks
Jack "BtR" Saxon has added the title "Professor" to the boldfaced lead and has removed quotation marks around the alias River Song. I believe such decisions regarding such a central character should be taken after a proper discussion in the community. I am starting this discussion now.

Regarding featuring "Professor" at the beginning of an article, the Wiki has been inconsistent. Jack Saxon suggests two examples: Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart and John Benton, both of which are not very telling: the Brig is such an exception, down to The Brigadier redirect, that it can hardly be a template for anything; John Benton, on the other hand, has held a number of military ranks over his career and none of them is present at the beginning of his page. However, my own research shows that the honourific Professor has been used rather inconsistently. Here are three main trends: Unfortunately, I am not familiar with many of these characters, but it is my suspicion that most of them are only known in DWU at the time they are professors.
 * "Professor" at the beginning of the page (boldfaced): Winfold Hobbes, Eric Stahlman, George Litefoot, Grisenko, J. P. Kettlewell, Celeste Rivers, Rubeish, Gerald Peach, Stream, Alistair Gryffen, Aaron Copley, Archibald Angelchrist, Kellman, Brett, Logan, Peabody, Jackij, Kyle, Charles Kettering, Parsek, Wilberforce, Saurian, etc.;
 * "Professor" at the beginning of the page (not boldfaced): Frederick Marius, Richard Lazarus, Clifford Jones, Arthur Candy, Zaroff, Edward Travers, Rachel Jensen, Sarah Lasky, Hayter, Malcolm Taylor, Watkins, Wagg, Parry, Sondergaard, Bernard Quatermass, Herbert Clegg, Daniel Eldred, Webster, Patrick Trethui, etc.;
 * no "Professor" in any form at the beginning of the page for characters with professorial titles: Emile Moorhouse, Albert Smithe, Daniel Joyce, etc.

River Song is an alias that was given to River at birth. On the other hand, she only got the professorial title rather late in her adventures. Out of her 15 full-TV-episode appearances, she has only been a professor in 5 (by my quick and dirty count). Plus 5 audio stories. (I am not qualified to estimate the comic and prose stories.)

I find three problems with the current edition of the lead:
 * 1) It is not stated that River Song is an alias.
 * 2) River Song is not put in quotation marks as is common for assumed names.
 * 3) The title Professor given in the lead is only present in roughly half the TV/audio stories. It seems wrong to introduce a character by a title that has nothing to do with half the stories about her and that is neither her primary nor her constant characteristic. Amorkuz  ☎  13:32, May 11, 2016 (UTC)

A handful of River's husbands/spouses are already listed. Difficult to list them all as there are many. Should all the spouses of the Doctor be listed? he has many too.

New image


I'm proposing that this could be the new image for this page, I realize now that I have to ask here. HolmestoHomes ☎  19:25, January 13, 2017 (UTC)

p.s. I never said that the other image didn't suit the guidelines, I stated that this one did. HolmestoHomes ☎  19:27, January 13, 2017 (UTC)
 * Too flat. Because of the tint used to fit the mood, it all becomes one colour. OS25 (Talk) 16:37, June 7, 2017 (UTC)

"Spoilers"
I wonder whether it's really necessary for her to keep the Doctor in the dark about the future, or she does it mostly to tease him? Time paradoxes are different in nature: some are benign, while others are dangerous; what is the case there? --Jim Fruit ☎  16:25, June 7, 2017 (UTC)

Time Lord or Proto-Time Lord?
In the latest Diary Of River Song Set, River refers to herself and her siblings as “Proto-Time Lords”. Should this be reflected in the info box as it’s a more specific and accurate description of her species, especially seeing as she’s also made it clear in Doom Coalition that she’s not a Time Lord in the same sense as the Doctor and the other characters from Gallifrey. SarahJaneFan ☎  21:53, January 25, 2018 (UTC)
 * You could reference on the page that she says that, but I don't agree it would be okay to wholly replace "Time Lord" with "Proto-Time Lord" because in the same box set River also describes herself as "an embryonic Time Lord" and Lily says, "We're Time Lords, [River] told me." Not to mention a specific plot point in A Good Man Goes to War is that River has "human plus Time Lord" DNA. Since we consider all valid sources equally valid, we can't say that the proto-Time Lord comment overrides all the other references to her being a Time Lord, including from the very same box set release. Mewiet ☎  05:13, January 26, 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image
Just as the pages for the Doctor, the Master, the Eleven, Borusa, etc. have slideshows in their infoboxes showing their different incarnations, doesn't River deserve that too? -- Saxon (✉️) 14:51, February 3, 2020 (UTC)

Infobox changes needed.
The sibling category only allows ten siblings to be added. Could this be changed by an admin? River has an eleventh sibling O who cannot fit in her infobox. Xx-connor-xX ☎  22:46, April 4, 2020 (UTC)

River remembered "The Year That Never Was"?
Firstly to make it clear this isn't me proposing she remembered it, she's already been placed in this category for some reason but I am rather doubtful of this. Is there some media stating this as fact? Currently there's no reference to it in her page as far as I can tell either, other than that she's been lumped into that category. QisMyName ☎  17:25, April 29, 2020 (UTC)
 * I was the one who added her to the category as she visited Jack Harkness on the Valiant in R&J (audio story) and was later shown to have memory of this. Xx-connor-xX ☎  18:39, April 29, 2020 (UTC)
 * When in the story is River aboard the Valiant? I didn't catch that. 07:35, April 30, 2020 (UTC)

Human vs Proto-Time Lord
In contrast with the discussion two years ago, as to whether she would be listed as both a "Proto-Time Lord" and a "Time Lord" or just a "Time Lord", a discussion has emerged over whether she should be listed as human as well as Proto-Time Lord. Three users were originally involved in this, but stopped before it became an edit war. The reasoning given is as follows:


 * added "human" to species. as stated in 'A Good Man Goes to War' she is Human + Time Lord


 * Proto-Time Lords are human, just with Time Lord qualities


 * The Proto-Time Lord has no reference to them being human at all - just a humanoid species category


 * This is most confusing; how can she be both human and a human descended species? Surely it is one or the other, not both


 * she is said to be human + time lord in 'A Good Man Goes to War'. why is that any less valid than the big finish explanation that she is Proto-Time Lord (which never said anything about being of human descent)

I then came back to this discussion after thinking about it two weeks later and reverted back to not having the human species listed. My reasoning was the following.


 * After thinking about this more, this is the right call, look at the Posthuman article, notable individuals, their species tags for precedence. Proto-Time Lord implies human(or at least homo genus). No need to have it twice.

It was then reverted with no reasoning. It's been three weeks since then, so I'm sure everyone is coming to this with a reasonable distance from the original events and the second round of events, so I'm starting an actual discussion about the topic. Should we treat "Proto-Time Lord" as implying "human" or do we add the human tag separately? I note for this discussion, as well as the arguments made prior, that the "Time Lord or Proto-Time Lord?" discussion was never resolved, but her species has been listed exclusively as "Proto-Time Lord" (+Data Ghost) since last February, when User:BananaClownMan did a multi day cleanup on the page. Najawin ☎  06:01, July 9, 2020 (UTC)


 * there was a large discussion about this on my talkpage so i would appreciate you not to keep accusing people of doing it without reason (when in doubt, ask!).


 * you say that "human" and "proto-time lord" go hand-in-hand like "posthuman", but that is not true in the slightest. there's nothing to suggest that only humans can be proto-time lords and therefore being part human needs specifying. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  07:41, July 11, 2020 (UTC)


 * Er. Subtle miscommunication, I said "It was then reverted with no reasoning" - as in, my edit was reverted and no reasoning was given. Not that there was no reason for them to revert it. Ostensibly I assume that every user of this wiki has a reason for the edits they make. And certainly the user could have already agreed with the reasons given in the prior exchange or your talk page (which I note for readers of this thread did not end in consensus but in "I'll have to listen to the audios again"). But the edit was simply a blank revert, is what I meant.


 * Now, as for the idea that "there's nothing to suggest that only humans can be proto-time lords", I direct you to Proto-Time Lord. They are all explicitly human descended beings. That is, as far as the wiki is concerned, part of the definition of the term (or to be technical, it's a consequence of the definition, in that the definition is River+clones of River). If that changes in the future, and we have beings in the future described as "Proto-Time Lords" because they can regenerate, we can modify her infobox. Though I note we have precedence for characters being able to regenerate and not being described in this way, see Regen-inf and The Witch's Familiar. Najawin ☎  07:57, July 11, 2020 (UTC)


 * the argument ‘’’against’’’ the change you made had already been made in several of the earlier edit summaries, the situation was extremely close to an edit war and your edit was (unintentionally I’m sure) adding to that. I can only assume that is why your edit was reverted by an admin.


 * however, there is nothing to suggest that only humans can be Proto-time lords. that would be like saying that only humans could be time agents if we don’t know any non-human time agents (hopefully we don’t or that would be a poor example). DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  11:32, July 11, 2020 (UTC)


 * As I said, "the user could have already agreed with the reasons given in the prior exchange [...] But the edit was simply a blank revert". And no, my contribution could not have possibly added to an "edit war situation". Edit wars occur when specific users do something over short periods of time. I was a new user who came to this after thinking about it for two weeks. Regardless, I'm not here to litigate the merits of the revert. I merely was explaining the context of the edit summaries for people reading this, and since there was miscommunication I had to explain.


 * As for the Time Agent example, I direct you to Time Agency. It is, indeed, the policy of this wiki that all Time Agents are human. So thank you for an example that proves my point, the wiki is pretty famous for not allowing us to talk about things past what is found in stories. See how in thread Thread:272817 we're discussing things based on this fact. Najawin ☎  19:15, July 11, 2020 (UTC)


 * nowhere does it say the time agency only employs human agents. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  21:38, July 11, 2020 (UTC)


 * "The Agency employed human Time Agents," - Explicitly specifying human. Until we're shown otherwise, all Time Agents are human. See also Tardis (The Zygon Isolation) for another article where the article does not say anything more than what is explicitly stated in the story in question. Najawin ☎  21:45, July 11, 2020 (UTC)