Talk:Amy Pond/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is the picture appropriate?

Considering it's a picture of the actress, and not the character? DavidFarmbrough 81.156.170.170 (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Now we have a pic of the char. --Silurian King (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

New image

This new image is not suitable for the article as it is a behind the scenes photograph of the production, you can see filming crew in shot. This removes it from the ficticious realm and makes it an image of the actors rather than the characters. It is fine for use in the Karen Gillan article, but not the Amy Pond article. magnius (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly suitable; it appears in the "casting and initial filming" section, and is a photograph showing the cast actress participating in the initial filming of her role. It also has the added benefits of being available under a free license (with specific permission from the photographer). I genuinely can't see the problem. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 11:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TreasuryTag (talk · contribs). It is specifically relevant to the section on casting and filming. Cirt (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A ridiculously flimsy arguement that would allow for an image of Gillan as the soothsayer to be included simply because the character is mentioned. This article is about Amy Pond, not the filming of series 5. magnius (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That section is about the "casting and initial filming" – a photograph of the cast actress participating in the initial filming is clearly relevant. The image also has the added benefits of being available under a free license (with specific permission from the photographer). I'm not clear where your soothsayer-analogy comes from? ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 12:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is Photo in Casting and initial filming section relevant

Is the photograph in the "Casting and initial filming" section relevant to the article? 13:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Please do not have threaded discussions in your individual subsection. Please only do that in the subsection, Further discussion. 13:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Previously involved editors

Comments from Cirt

The image should be included. It is relevant to the subsection, Casting and initial filming.
The issue is with the image, File:The Eleventh Doctor and Amy Pond .jpg. This image is located on Wikimedia Commons, and confirmed as free-use by WP:OTRS.
The image is relevant to the character, as a free-use image of the actress portraying the character, during production filming - and in-costume as the character.

Cirt (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from TreasuryTag

My comments are clearly noted here and here – ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 14:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Magnius

Previously uninvolved editors

Comments from JForget

I don't see issues with the image - it is related to the character and the subject/film/program, so it should be kept - preferably. In addition, looking at the license, seems it is within the rules--JForget 14:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from AnmaFinotera

I'd say it was fine, if its cropped to focus on her then used in the infobox as it is clearly a free alternative to the same image in the infobox, as she is "in-character" at the time it was taken. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from pd_THOR

I concur with AnmaFinotera; since the image is taken of the character (from a filming POV, which is irrelevant) as performed, it should suffice as the sole imagery for this character, as WP:NFCC#1 precludes non-free imagery performing the same function. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from The Wordsmith

There's no reason not to include the picture. Since its from the filming and she's in-character, its relevant. Also, a much better option than a non-free image. Free is *always* better. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Sceptre

I'm uninvolved as I can be as a WikiProject member; my focus has been on Smith more than Gillan. That said, the free image is taken of Gillan in character, thus is an acceptable replacement (although, personally, I'd prefer an image that didn't have her with the deer-in-headlights reaction). Sceptre ^(talk) 18:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

Consensus appears to be to keep the available free-use image, and use a free-use image in the infobox instead of a fair-use image. Cirt (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of a few details

I just happened by this article, and made a few changes to it. I realize the article is still full protected, so if you wish for me to reverse my action, please ask either myself or another sysop to do it. Rather than edit war, I will respect your judgment and will raise the issue here. NW (Talk) 02:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Restored, but then immediately I self reverted. This should not have been removed while the article is full-protected. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have restored to the original version per your request. However, I would still like to discuss the inclusion of this material. The first filmed scenes of Amy Pond were in October. I agree that is certainly an important detail, and should be included within the article. However, I can't see the value of including the information about the December shots. To me, that would be akin to listing in Martha Jones every time Freema Agyeman went to another country to film another episode of Doctor Who. It certainly would be true, but would not be very useful to the reader. NW (Talk) 05:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is still among the first ever reported info of filmed scenes of the character. It is only a few lines and I think interesting, important and relevant info of the first bits of reporting on filming of the character. Cirt (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Martha Jones thing is a good example - I would say we could discuss and cite reports of filming from her very early shoots as the character, perhaps two or even three different locations and reactions from these early shoots - but yea, not every single one ever. Cirt (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fair then. I tend to agree with you now, though I would still be interested in hearing a third party view (hi, talk page watchers!) NW (Talk) 17:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Main image

Is there any hope of a replacement photo for the main image? It's really not a flattering picture, to be honest, and doesn't seem to match the sort of character being described. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Something different for a change

A report in yesterday's Sun newspaper says that Amy Pond will be working as a kissogram and the police uniform is part of that. I don't know if it's been reported anywhere else, but it's not in the article at all and I'm quite surprised nobody's tried to add it yet either. Digital Spy are also reporting it. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed, or rumors? Cirt (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it says "a show insider revealed" so hard to say really. I probably wouldn't take it as confirmed. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait for it to be firmer reported in WP:RS sources then. :P Cirt (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I just thought maybe it had been but it had been missed, but it seems The Sun were the first to report it. I really can't believe nobody tried to add it to the article though! What's going on?! ;) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just an extra link, from MSN: [1] 81.23.48.116 (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Replacing the image

Hi! I know I raised this before, and it was discussed in the RFC, but the more I think about it the more uncomfortable I am with the main image. Personally, I think we would do better to have no image than the one currently used in the infobox. There are three problems: the image has been cropped and resized so much that the quality - and especially the colours - are very poor (there's only so much you could do with the original source file); it depicts the character in a pose which does not reflect the character's actual design (she's supposed to be a very strong companion, yet the picture looks completely different to that); and, to be perfectly honest, the combination of plastic skin tones, wide eyes and open mouth isn't really the way most people would like to be depicted, suggesting, as it does, something else.

I'm aware of the argument that a free image is better than a non-free one, but we come back to value - if the free image doesn't properly depict the character then the image isn't valuable, irrespective of the license. - Bilby (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC consensus is to use the free-use image. Cirt (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but the RFC was between free-use and fair-use images. My concern is that the image doesn't accurately depict the character, and is of low quality (solely because you were forced to crop it from a large picture). I'd argue that we'd be better off with no image than one which doesn't provide an accurate depiction. - Bilby (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The RFC was also about this image itself. I strongly support using free use images when available, and certainly so in this case. It should not be removed. Cirt (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree - we should always use free images when available. What I'm saying, though, is that we need to have a certain standard for the images we use, and that those images should be accurate if they're being used to depict a character. If they're not, then we're better off without an image, as we end up giving an inaccurate impression. Amy is meant to be a strong character, but, as Sceptre described it, the image shows a "deer-in-headlights". That's not what Amy Pond is supposed to be. - Bilby (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

At this point, all these things are speculation and supposition anyways. Cirt (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the article has Davies describing her as a "great, big, strong character", which doesn't match the picture, and either way we still have the quality issue. I'd be happy just to swap the two free images over - the second one doesn't focus on her, but the quality is higher and the depiction closer. - Bilby (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The infobox appears to lack a field for an image caption. Cirt (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that an appropriate image will soon become available online —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.229.253 (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Portals

The See also section is the appropriate location for portals. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced additions

Let's keep to the current standard of sourcing for this page, and have citations for information. Let us please try to avoid unsourced additions to the page. Even citations to specific primary sources are much better than no citations at all. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Amy's Age

In The Beast Below, Amy's age is given as 1306. Given that the story is set in the 29th century, wouldn't this mean she was born in the 16th century? That can't be right, can it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.119.226.145 (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Add 300 years for the age of Liz 10, and you get 19th century. Oh yeah, the story isn't set in the 29th century--the start of Starship UK's journey is the 29th century.DonQuixote (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Given the Queen's age, that would make it the 32nd century. But as you say, that puts Amy's birth in the 19th century. And since Moffat can't be that bad at math, that means something funny's going on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.119.226.145 (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Okie...you're reading way too much into it. The Doctor's guess is that she's 300 years old. He could be off by a hundred years or so (not much worse than carbon dating). And this conversation has most definitely strayed into a forum territory. Just to let you know, perceived plot inconsistencies are irrelevant to this article. DonQuixote (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, never mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.119.226.145 (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Apology To Recent Reader To Amy Pond's Article

I Didn't Realize That Amy Was A Kissogram Dressed As A PC For The Metropolitan Police Department. I Sincerely Apologize For My Mistake. I Hope You Can Forgive For My Gross Mistake. Coolhawks88 (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's no problem, but if you read the article you would have known. anemoneprojectors talk 11:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Child actor

Why is Caitlin Blackwood in the infobox, while Jessica Ashworth is not in the Sarah Jane Smith infobox ??? I think this is inconsistent. Hektor (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You could fix it, at the Sarah Jane Smith page. -- Cirt (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a hidden message in the Sarah Jane Smith infobox. I fear an edit war. Hektor (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dates

We have the dates of the encounters with the Doctor from the shooting script in DWM 421 (page 24):

June 1996 with Amelia (child)
2008 with Amy (kissogram)
and we know the third one is during the night of 25-26 June 2010. Hektor (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Amys picture

Can we please have a better picture of her in both the actors and Amys article? The one thats there now looks absolutely like she's some sort of baffled retard. It does not display her character or her looks at all. Lord Chaos (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. I don't think it would be possible to have a worse picture. Anyone want to upload a new one? shokuwarrior 16:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Image Discussion Redux

Since I wasn't privy to the original image discussion and it was months ago I think it's time to revisit this. I recently uploaded File:Amy Pond3.png to replace the infobox image only to be reverted by User:TreasuryTag referring to the previous consensus. As consensus can change, I'm proposing that the current image be replaced with my upload (or equivalent) for the following reasons.

- The current image is poor quality, blurred, out of focus and not up to the job of accurately illustrating the character
- The image does not show the character in her normal costume/clothing, rather an outfit only worn in the opening episode so is not an accurate reflection of the character's appearance again.
- Promotional images have precedent for illustrating characters and are used elsewhere with no problems under fair use doctrine.
- While the current image is supposedly freely licensed and that would normally trump fair use, it's of insufficient quality/accuracy to be a fair representation of the character. It's also entirely possible that a photograph of an actor "in character" may fall foul of the "derivative works" clause in copyright law, bringing it's free status into question.

For these reasons I feel that the image should be replaced with a new one. Exxolon (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I am not aware that anything material has changed since the RfC other than Exxolon appearing on the scene, and while consensus can change, I see no reason why it should in this case. I stand by all the arguments in favour of the free image which were put forward during the RfC. ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 17:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, my position on the image discussion hasn't changed since the RFC either; I remain in favour of retaining the libre image. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, free images "win" 99% of the time. In my opinion, I suggest that the freely licensed image stays. One way to lower the visible blurriness may be to use a bigger portion of the source image. The image as shown in the infobox may look better then.--Rockfang (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Why exactly keep an image which is demeaning of the character and the actress? The picture is out of character and makes her look really stupid. Its demeaning to the show and the actress. Maybe free image trumps fair use image, but good image trumps bad image. Please reconsider sensibly. Lord Chaos (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You asked the question, "Why?" Which part of everybody else's argument and the copyright policy did you find confusing? You claim, "Good image trumps bad image." Not so. (That said, talking about demeaning images, is this one under a compatible license...?) ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 13:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The part that the other picture for fills all 4 criteria to be used that Wikipedia requires. And no, that image is not demeaning for the actress, though would be for her Doctor Who character and completely out of character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Chaos (talk • contribs) 23:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I raised this before, but I guess if it comes down to no image or the current one, I'm leaning towards none, as it doesn't properly depict the character. While I understand and respect why we'd go with a free image over fair use, and that's sensible enough, we're still stuck with the problem of displaying the character accurately. Mind you, the current version of the image is better than it was - she's still not accurate, but her skin doesn't look o plasticy, which is a big improvement. (It's always tricky working with small crops of images). - Bilby (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We should keep using the free use image, instead of a fair use one. If users do not like it, they should attempt to obtain permission for an alternate free use image. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand Cirt, and generally I agree with you. The problem comes down to an accurate depiction. Free use is better than fair use. But is free use that inaccurately portrays the character better than fair use that does? Or, alternatively, is it better to use an inaccurate free use image than no image? I don't think it comes down to a simple answer, I'm afraid. If consensus is that we must have an image, and that free use always trumps fair use, irrespective of quality or depiction, then that's fine: I'm just inclined to say that this isn't the best option from my perspective. - Bilby (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone else other than myself has even gone to any effort to try to obtain a relevant free-use image. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I've been trying. The difficulty is that we need an image that shows the character, not the actress, so all the convention shots and pictures of Karen Gillan, even waiting to be filmed, aren't necessarily of any use. The one you found seems to have been the best available, which is great - I just wish she'd been in a different pose so it would be more accurate to the character. - Bilby (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

THe only way to obain a free image is to email BBC and ask their image to be released, which I doubt they would do. Amy Pond is a BBC character, so I doubt a good quality free use image exist, unless you happen to be there at the filming :? . --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No that is not the only way to obtain a free use image. I am in the process of contacting others right now. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've put out a couple of requests as well. Anyway, when you added this image it was definitely the best free use image available. Hopefully now that more filming has occurred there will be other options, but I guess we'll see. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Then use a fair use picture, BBC even states that non-profit use is permitted and wikipedia is non-profit. As Wikipedia guidelines clearly states that fair use pictures can be used if no free alternative exists that satisfies requirements. Lord Chaos (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The BBC policy is irrelevant, because they do not release their pictures under a free license, as is required. You're absolutely right about Wikipedia guidelines—except, a free alternative does exist (the one used in the article). It does satisfy the requirements. Therefore, there is no need to use fair-use content. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 12:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A picture of a character, practically by definition, needs to be fair-use. A free-use picture taken during filming is a picture of the actress, not the character.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you expand on this? What is the practical distinction between a picture of the actress, wearing costume, during filming, and a picture of the character (who is just the actress wearing costume, it being fiction and all that)? ╟─Treasury Tag►draftsman─╢ 14:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. Maybe I'm just weird. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What am I missing here? From this image, it appears to be a free picture of her acting, in character, being filmed. How more 'real' does it get? I could understand this maybe if it were a shot of her just hanging out on set in the costume, but it isn't. MickMacNee (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to delete new image before RFC complete

This is unacceptable - it needs to be referred to during this discussion. If the RFC concludes the current image is the one to use it can be deleted afterwards. Exxolon (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NFC and WP:COPYRIGHT are very clear: non-free images which are not used in any mainspace articles must be marked for deletion. I'm sure that you can understand the reason for this. If you can cite a policy or guideline providing an exception for instances such as this, please point it out here, and I will gladly accept it. (For what it's worth, I don't forsee this RfC coming to the conclusion that the fair-use picture should be used, anyway...) ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 12:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think further discussion here is going to help. We both clearly think we are right and I don't see any chance of comprimise. I'll throw at ANI for some opinions. Exxolon (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems likely to produce a productive response, yes. Good idea. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 14:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to rush to tag it while there is an on-going discussion unless your intention is to create more drama. There is zero harm in letting a discussion about an image finish before tagging it.--Crossmr (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Zero harm apart from the legal risks that the Foundation is running by hosting a copyrighted image which isn't used for any encyclopedic purpose, I assume you meant? ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 14:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If there is currently an on-going discussion about an image that is in and out of an article, then yes. Zero harm. If there is no discussion or the discussion has concluded, tag it. Its use for an encyclopedic purpose hadn't fully been decided. If you're so utterly paranoid put it in the article space for the duration of the discussion, deleting it derails the discussion and creates the very drama you claimed you were trying to avoid.--Crossmr (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal - use larger crop

Let's get real here - you have zero chance of getting a consensus to use a non-free image when a reasonable free image exists, there are simply too many ardent supporters of 'the mission' for that to ever happen. To address the issue that the image is somehow low quality, I cannot see what's wrong with using the original image it is very closely cropped from, or something close to its full size (right). I think the costume argument is irrelevant, I think people can tell from the article (and the skirt) that she is not a full time copper, and infact, the character attracted a lot of RS attention because of this costume, so there is recognition there, and I cannot think what other 'costume' would be more correct, she just seems to wear casual clothes and/or micro skirts to me (again, her choice to have the character appear many times in short skirts is also shown in the police costume image, meaning that again, showing her in this costume isn't really that inaccurate). MickMacNee (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thats the thing, its not a reasonable pppcture when it doesn't portray neither the character, the characters role or the actress. On top of that it puts her in a bad light because she looks like she's gaping mouth open and look like she's not very bright (to put it mildly). Its even more out of place than using a picture of The Joker to portray "Heath Ledger" in his actor article as the main image. Wikipedias mission should be to portray things neutrally and as accurate as possible, and as such the image is neither. I am trying to get another free image, but they are being hesitant because they don't understand what the big deal is against using a promotional image. Lord Chaos (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about, the Heath Ledger article does not have a picture of the Joker as his infobox pic. And this article is about the character, I see that the cropped image is also being used to portray her in the Karen Gillan article, but that isn't what this discussion is about. And again, how does this pic not portray the character, other than the rather thin costume argument? It looks for all the world to be a picture of an in-progress in-character shoot. And I don't know what you are seeing, but I rather think she is going for a look of surprise in that shot, I certainly don't see 'dumb', not when the big, uncropped pic, is used. Good luck with the request, all you have to say is Wikipedia needs a completely free release because all images it uses if not claiming fair use, must be able to be used for anything, even commercial re-use, and that, because of 'the mission', we absolutely cannot use a non-free image when a free one exists, no matter how rubbish or unrperesentative it is (I don't necessarily agree, but this is how it is). Tell them that they don't have to necessarily give a high quality pic, a low res thumb would do, it just needs a proper release. MickMacNee (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Infact, how come there is zero mention of the short skirt 'controversy' anyway? Not that I am objecting (and the air quotes are deliberate), but the frequent use wearing of tiny skirts by Amy always comes up whenever Gillan gives an interview or makes an appearance that I've seen, it's definitely become a defining and feature of the character, noted in RS. MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And, IANAL, but I think there is zero chance of claiming a photo taken from a public place of an exterior shoot is in any way a derivative work. MickMacNee (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The alternative image you proposed seems to be missing now. However, since this is an article about the fictional character Amy Pond, and not the real actress, it seems that a shot of Amy Pond from the series would be reasonable to use. Zuchinni one (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely clear what you mean—both the free image and the non-free image show[ed] the actress in-role, as in, in the series. ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 10:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There are several free images of Amy Pond in character available, therefore we may not use a non-free one. What's unclear about all that? Stifle (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Right. Just to clarify, there are no issues whatsoever with using a fair-use image, and no issues whatsoever with using a free-use image, so all we have here is a few puritans insisting on a lower quality image, because - in a purely clerical sense - it's one stage further along the scale of "freeness." Even though there are plenty of images tailor-made to portray Amy Pond and created for promotional purposes which nobody has any issues with the use of. And people are sticking by this completely theoretical difference in status even though the current one is clearly de-contextualised by the fact that there is a massive HD camera taking up half the shot? And in spite of the fact that the majority of television characters use fair-use images on their pages, in spite of free-use ones being available? No, that doesn't sound completely bonkers at all, carry on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.32.208 (talk • contribs)
Well, if you disagree with Wikipedia's policy on using copyrighted material then you are free to propose that it be changed. But that's not a discussion for here. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 20:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Myself, I think what I disagree with is the single-minded adherence to it. But I mean, I'm no big wikipedian, I don't even have an account. There's probably more stuff going on here that if I'm honest, I'm not overly keen on spending too much of my time on. What I find completely baffling though is that there are plenty of pages out there where pictures which are clearly fair-use have been used, and if by wikipedia policies a picture with a big ol' camera in the middle is considered to be preferable, I'm not sure why there aren't more pages with slapdash candid shots of the ilk. I mean, if the distinction between fair-use and free-use is so mindbendingly crucial in this situation (which, as you say, is policy matter, so I won't get into it), why isn't there a blurry starspotter image on the Eleventh Doctor page? Or the Tenth Doctor page? Free-use images of 'em are two a penny, but either someone's committed a cardinal sin, or actually an image of a greater calibre is not only plausible but precedented within the context of the same TV series. I guess what I'm saying is that this is clearly something where on other pages, quality has been preserved over this policy distinction, so I'm not sure why on this particular page some are so brutally insistent on sticking to what is a microscopically significant matter in which nobody's toes are trodden on either way. Way I see it, I don't think there's an argument that a picture taken by a little fella in a bush can be considered representative in the same way as an image that was tailor-made for the purpose of representing the matter in question, and released under fair-use for that specific reason. Sorry, but with respect I can't see this as anything but a slightly obstinate adherence to a rule so minor that I think it's probably more savvy to disregard. But again, that's just me. Outsider's perspective. Either the emperor's naked, or I'm just a bit of a div. Hard to tell which. (Btw, cheers for the heads up on the signatures! Think I'm doing it right, now.) 82.33.32.208 (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)82.33.32.208 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2010 (GMT)
Yeah, TLDR basically, but "single-minded" adherence is what is required of a policy. Why else would we have it? If there are breaches elsewhere, then they should be dealt with, not used as excuses for problems here... (But your signature was perfect!) ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 21:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Ahhh, well at least the signature's right! I suppose I'm just saying that it seems odd that the pages where the policy is apparently defied are actually pages that look more professional than this one, so I suppose you were right when you said that my issue is more with the fundamental policy. I'd argue it's something worth bringing up with the powers that be, though. 'Cause the distinction is, in practice, pretty minor, whereas the difference in appearance is in my eye comparatively major. But blah! I'm not the one to do it; I don't have the time or particularly the will. I'm gonna gracefully concede. I'm adamant that I've got a point, but I also figure I've got too maverick an attitude to the rules, it's good that you guys are running a tight ship! Shame I don't fit in with it, but good job, cap'n. 82.33.32.208 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Rebutting the defense of single-minded adherence to policy would threaten the approach of Godwin's Law, so on that point I'll just say WP:BURO and WP:IGNORE. Furthermore, you should realize that as long as that picture remains, random people (like me) will come around and try to get rid of it. Make no mistake, that's the crappiest picture ever, and this article would be improved with no photo. Please also note that every other companion's info box contains a picture of the actor in costume, in character and having their picture taken. Pictures found here are good examples of what an actor looks like when her character is posing for a picture. Random snaps do not have the same effect. Therefore, Q: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" A:No. Daburow (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Daburow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
WP:BURO does not say that we should breach copyright requirements. As long as that picture remains, random people (like me) will come around and try to get rid of it. I very much suggest that you don't. ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 10:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

...and WP:IGNORE doesn't give us carte blance to ignore copyright. The solution to random people coming along and removing a free image would be to protect the article... something I'd prefer not to have to request. TFOWR 10:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Neither of you address my main point. For reasons stated above, the free image is not equivalent to the image available under fair-use policy. Hosting an image under fair-use would not be breaching or ignoring copyright. Btw thanks for the sig tag. WP:Bite much? Or just folks who disagree? Daburow (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Daburow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Well, your shit point about Godwin's law was rather distracting... I'm not planning to engage with you any further, since you are clearly not a newbie if you can quote 'bite' at me, and you can clearly read the extensive arguments which considered that the free image was adequate. ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 14:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Off topic, but what's a "sig tag"? TFOWR 14:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I appended {{SPA}} to his signature, given that he is rather a recent editor to be immediately engaging in discussion of the non-free content criteria. ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 14:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, got it. I was looking at your sig and then my sig and then back to yours - we both have a history of interesting sigs, so I wondered if there was anything inadvertently WP:BITEy in either sig. No issue with adding {{spa}} tags, surprised an editor familiar with WP:BITE would not be familiar with {{spa}} tags and their quite legitimate use. TFOWR 14:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If I'm doing something wrong, feel free to correct me however you see fit, but I believe my points are still valid. And you know, after more research, I'm of the mind that that having this discussion in the Amy Pond article is not going to be very productive when there's a long history of debate on this topic at The Eleventh Doctor article, WP:WHO and way more than I can possibly link at WP:FU.

I still haven't figured out how to find consensus anywhere, or if it even exists in those discussions, but I did find the MOS:TV which states "When looking for images for the character infobox, it would be best to find images that best represent the character in question – this can sometimes be promotional images, which provide better lighting on the character." I know vague, WP:BURO and WP:IGNORE, and probably policy trumps style, but it is the closest thing I've seen to a clear guideline. End Wall o' Text. Daburow (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I genuinely don't see how you can find this complicated, I'm afraid. Non-free Content Criterion 1 clearly states, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Encyclopedic purpose. If this was an arts magazine, I agree that we'd want an image of Amy looking nice. But given that we just want people to be able to see the picture and go, "Oh, yes, that's the one I was interested in," the current image is adequate. ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 07:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, thats the thing you keep missing again and again, it clearly states e-q-u-i-v-a-l-e-n-t, means its on level with the requirements, which this free image is not, its very much subpar, does not meet the criteria of portraying neither the person, nor the actor. This is clearly seen in the high amounts of protests considering the usage of the page. Just because there was a free use image of Morgan Freemans naked butt, would not mean it would be good to use as a main image. Lord Chaos (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, whatever. ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 21:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't take it too personally. A lot of us, including myself, had to come to terms with the fact that a lot of the images that we uploaded for these article got deleted because a third party came along and protested that it didn't meet the fair-use criteria and other such policies. ("Mostly harmless.") DonQuixote (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Plums in a pond

Can I just point out that, as an unregistered bystander, User:TreasuryTag comes off as a right plum in his handling of editing this article and the subsequent discussions. Aren't there any kind of rules in place to prevent users intentionally badgering people/being insulting? --82.32.129.128 (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with him being a plum, but the edit war was unecessary and silly, TT should have stopped and gone to this talk page sooner--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There are many rules in place, some of which have recently been enforced against a couple of editors. Neither of whom are "plums", IMHO ;-) It's only a suggestion, but WP:BRD is how I'd like to see everyone editing. TFOWR 14:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, you should always explain why you reverted someone unless its clear vandalism or no edit summary (by the way both editors are in the process of being unblocked now as some editors on the ANI board believe it is better to the block the article for a bit)--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, WP:BRD goes further, and suggests that the reverting stop after the first revert. I certainly want to see discussion, but I want to see no more B+R until the D is over ;-) TFOWR 14:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Casting and initial filming

I made an edit to the said paragraph from "three of her predecessors" to "some of her predecessors" as companion actors having smaller roles in Doctor Who had ocurred before during the original 26 year run of the show. The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What? No mention of Karen's cousin playing "young Amelia"...?85.158.138.20 (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Third para of the Casting and initial filming section. Edgepedia (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox picture

There needs to be a new picture in the infobox. Firstly, it looks terrible, and secondly, it's technically not even Amy Pond; the camera's in the shot, so it's a behind-the-scenes photo of Karen Gillan.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

See discussion above. DonQuixote (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no discussion above. Please, change the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.9.91 (talk • contribs)

The discussions 'above' as subsequently been moved into an archive Talk:Amy Pond/Archive 1. Edgepedia (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What about the promotional image found on the second page here? Promotional images have been used in characters before, such as Jack Harkness, which is GA. Glimmer721 ^talk 15:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, how many times do we have to have this conversation? Have you read the archived discussion linked above? If not, why not? If you have, what is your grounds for reopening it? ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 15:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If there was some kind of critical commentary on her typical outfit and appearance, I would say we should replace it with a promotional image, but since we have a free image of Gillan on set, portraying the role, and free images should always be used over non-free ones, then we should leave it as it is. I probably said that in the archived discussion too. –anemone projectors– 20:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Concieve a child"???

Surely Amy and Rory did not go home and conceive a child!! In the episode that is being referred to, the TARDIS scans flipped between the pregnancy existing and not existing. You can't say for certain whether Amy is pregnant or not.KnowledgeisPOWA (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles as references

I believe that Wikipedia articles are not acceptable references, but this article has several. I tried to remove some but I see they have been out back in. Old Crobuzon (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether the article is being used as a reference, or the subject of the article is the reference. In this case I think it was the latter - the episodes were being used to reference content from the episodes, and a link was provided to the article about them. - Bilby (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I coming here to say the same thing. It's not clear, and there's a template for this, but this was refering the episode as the source. Edgepedia (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

They're obviously using the episode itself as a primary source, which is OK. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 19:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There was one which just appears to be the episode name, "The Impossible Astronaut", and others which referenced the Wikipedia article explicitly. If the reference is to the episode itself, that needs to be made clear. Wikipedia is, strangely, not a reliable source, and that is explicitly stated in Wikipedia:Verifiability -- Do not use articles from Wikipedia or from websites that mirror its content as sources. Old Crobuzon (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia's not a reliable source, but you aren't reading what I wrote: the article is using the episodes themselves as primary sources. It's not surprising that it "references the Wikipedia article explicitly" – if I'm citing something to The Guardian, I'll usually link to our page about the newspaper. If I'm citing something to a book by James Lipton, I'll usually link to James Lipton. That's just called being helpful, and doesn't mean that I'm using Wikipedia articles as sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 08:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Which citation is the focus of the objection here? I don't see any references citing an article as a source. There is nothing wrong with linking to an article about an episode within a reference to the actual episode itself.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

...funny, that's what I just said above... ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 09:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly the reason TreasuryTag and Jeffro77 can't see any invalid citations is that Edgepedia and myself put some effort in last night replacing the invalid citations with valid ones. Thanks Edgepedia. Old Crobuzon (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not you "replacing an invalid citaiton with a valid one." It is you deleting a perfectly reasonable reference. Don't do that. ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 13:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Old Crobuzon, however <ref>"[[The Impossible Astronaut]]"</ref>, is not invalid, although it is incomplete and, as you have shown, possibly confusing. It's good to expand them out. However, references should not be deleted, even if a dead link. It could be simple error and there a number of tags for that. Edgepedia (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

@Treasury Tag. The edit you quote is me removing a non-reliable source, namely a Wikipedia article, with a summary saying so ("not a reliable source"). It was later fixed by Edgepedia who replaced the invalid citation, namely to a Wikpedia article, with a valid one, namely to an episode. Is that clear enough? You need not presume to issue orders, especially mistaken ones, to me again. Old Crobuzon (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Why aren't you reading the comments I make here? As I and others have told you multiple times, that source was not the Wikipedia article, but the episode itself, which is a reliable source. It was merely linked to the Wikipedia article for convenience, rather like if I was citing an article to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the footnote would link to Encyclopedia Brittanica, but would not be using that Wikipedia page as a reference. If you're going to take that ludicrous tone with me, then I will not continue in this discussion, but if you delete references from an article again you will be reported at WP:ANI. That is all. ╟─Treasury Tag►District Collector─╢ 22:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

@Treasury Tag. There's no need to shout, I heard you. I have read your comments, I just disagree with them. Oh, and you need not bother with threats either.

To summarise. Citations of the form <ref>"[[The Impossible Astronaut]]"</ref> are at best seriously misleading, since they are on the face of it references to Wikipedia articles, which are invalid as sources. A the very least they should say <ref>Episode "[[The Impossible Astronaut]]" </ref> and better still <ref>Episode "[[The Impossible Astronaut]]" number 214a broadcast on BBC1 on 23 April 2011</ref> for verifiability -- now it is clear that the episode is the source and the Wikipedia reference is the courtesy link: the clue is in the word "episode". BTW simply replacing an invalid reference with a valid one requires an editor to have actually verified the valid reference -- in this case, to have watched the episode. Old Crobuzon (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As you wish. However, a majority of people commenting here (as well as plain old common sense, I mean, goodness me...) identify links to episodes as perfectly acceptable – if not ideally presented – sources. Outright deleting valid references is at best disruptive and at worst vandalism, so don't say you haven't been warned. ╟─Treasury Tag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 11:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Name in infobox

Her name in the infobox should say "Amy Pond" not "Amelia Jessica Pond". The reason is that it is her "common name", the one she is most usually identified by. Her "full" name is in-universe information, there are probably no critics who refer to her as "Amelia Jessica Pond" or even "Amelia" when reviewing episodes. User:TreasuryTag said in an edit summary that the full name is "a convenient way to formally identify a character", but she's usually identified as Amy Pond, not Amelia. To me, it makes absolutely no sense to use a name that people are less familiar with for the infobox title. (And on a separate but related note, her name should really be above the image and the series she's from below it, but I already brought that up on the template's talk page, though I don't expect that many people are watching it.) –anemone projectors– 20:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

F'rinstance, see Harry Potter (character) – Anenome, where do you suggest listing the common name? ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 20:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter has his middle name but I don't think it should. Most articles on characters with middle names don't include them in the infobox. Rose Tyler and Hermione Granger, for example. Amy's common name should go where her full name currently is. Her full name doesn't need to be listed in the infobox. –anemone projectors– 22:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

...but then look at Ace (Doctor Who). You can prove anything with examples :P ╟─Treasury Tag►collectorate─╢ 22:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

So ignore other articles and respond to my original points. You were the one who brought up other articles. The name at the top of the infobox should be the name most familiar to people. (And it is my opinion that your examples should all be changed.) –anemone projectors– 23:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, shouldn't be Amy Williams, after marrying Rory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.29.162.188 (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe Rory changed his name to Rory Pond, as suggested on the front page of the recent Doctor Who Magazine? However, rather than assuming things, perhaps we should check the credits at the end of the recent episode (Amy Pond), the cast list listed on the Radio Times for next Saturday (Amy Pond), or the character page on the BBC website (Amy Pond). This is why Wikipedia has rules against original research Edgepedia (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Pregnant

I don't want to undo an edit that's undoing my own edit, but on tonight's Confidential they did say that Amy is nine months pregnant. Also, hello? SHE WAS IN LABOUR!!!! –anemone projectors– 22:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that she was in labour (as was David Chaytor hahaha), but aside from the fact that there's clearly something weird and sci-fi going on here, people frequently give birth to children after six or seven months. See premature birth. If Confidential confirms that it was a nine-month pregnancy, then that can and should be cited, ideally with a quote. ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 22:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well there's a chance I'm misremembering and they might not have said she was nine months pregnant. But we can definitely say she was heavily pregnant and in labour, can't we? –anemone projectors– 22:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's just that it seems an oddly precise claim to make in the absence of a reliable source, even if there wasn't timey-wimey stuff going on to increase the chances of something sci-fi affecting the normal birth cycle! ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 22:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on TreasuryTag, next you will be suggesting altered DNA, almost like a TimeLord or that "the river is the only water in the forest" because the residents of the Gamma Forest don't have a word for "Pond"...lol "Something sci-fi affecting the normal birth cycle" indeed...:-D82.0.25.104 (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Lance T.

"She is also the wife of Rory Williams and the mother of River Song"

This sentence is not appropriate in the lead; it accounts only for recent developments, and not the character as a whole. Per WP:RECENT, I have removed it once again. — Edokter (talk) — 12:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I make her boyfriend, fiance and wife of Rory, depending on what epsisode I'm watching. Think she's always the mother of River Song - although perhaps her other name Melody Pond needs mentioning when summerizing this relationship. Edgepedia (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Although her being a companion hasn't always been the case. The United States hasn't always been a country. David Cameron had an article long before he was Prime Minister. But it's important that current, irreversible (she can't stop being River's mum!) information is mentioned in the lede. ╟─Treasury Tag►draftsman─╢ 12:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

agree with edotker it is only a recent event, she hasnt always been a mother, Jackie from the 9th and 10th doctor stories has--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 12:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's check a couple of other ledes.

Deanna Troi: Commander Deanna Troi ( /diːˈænə/) is a main character in the science-fiction television series Star Trek: The Next Generation and related TV series and films, portrayed by actress Marina Sirtis. Troi is half-human, half-Betazoid and has the empathic ability to sense emotions. She serves as the ship's counselor on USS Enterprise. Throughout most of the series, she holds the rank of lieutenant commander. In the seventh season, however, Troi takes the bridge officer's examination and is promoted to the rank of commander, but continues as counselor. As of Star Trek: Nemesis she is credited as "Deanna Troi-Riker" [1] because of her marriage to William Riker.
Jack Aubrey: John "Jack" Aubrey, KB[1][2] , is a fictional character in the Aubrey–Maturin series of novels by Patrick O'Brian. The series portrays his rise from Lieutenant to Rear-Admiral in the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars. The twenty (and one incomplete draft)-book series encompasses Aubrey's adventures and various commands along his course to flying a rear admiral's flag. He starts as a lieutenant, depressed, poor and without a ship until he is given his first command: a fourteen-gun brig-rigged sloop, HMS Sophie.

These would seem to indicate that the lede should establish the course a character takes over their various appearances. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sarek for giving a good opposing view rather than mindlessly reverting an admin and having the cheek to blame said admin for the edit war--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 12:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In what way was the opposing view I typed just above not "good," pray? ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 13:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I would not mind mentioning any status and relationsips in the lead, as long as it emcompasses the entire character history. But in this form, the sentence does not serve that purpose, as it implies she has always been married and a mother. — Edokter (talk) — 13:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed wording

So how about something like the following: In "The Big Bang" she married her boyfriend Rory Williams, and in "A Good Man Goes to War" gave birth to a daughter Melody, who later took the name River Song. I'm tremendously excited by that formulation. Thoughts? ╟─Treasury Tag►tortfeasor─╢ 13:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Leave the episode names for the plot section; start with something like In the course of her narrative, she married her boyfriend..., etc. — Edokter (talk) — 13:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Referencing the specific episodes in the lead doesn't seem quite the right tone, but bearable. Leave out the redundant "her boyfriend". Should be present tense for fictional topics (WP:TENSE, WP:MOSFICT).--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Organization

I'm a bit confused on the organization of the last half of the article. The only creation stuff in the "Character creation" section is the fact Moffat came up with the name of the character; the rest is Russel T. Davies's commentary on Amy's character herself. I suppose the Scottish accent comment could be considered "creation", but the part about her auditioning in both accents is better suited in the casting section. The "casting and inital filming" section seems better, but I'm not sure what to do with the last paragraph--does all of it have to do with the character of Amy? The last quote seems tacked on by a fan and could be used earlier.

I'm not trying to offend anyone who has worked on the article--this just came around because I found a quote by Karen Gillan concerning her interpretation of Amy, but I wasn't sure where to put it and wanted others' opininions. Thanks, Glimmer721 ^talk 22:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Change last name?

Amy is now and already has been married to Rory Williams. Should we change her name from Pond to Williams as they are now married? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAmberGold (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever said that her last name was changed (although I haven't rewatched series 6 yet). We definitely should not move the article as she is most commonly known as Amy Pond. BOVINEBOY2008 16:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

She hasn't changed her name. Edgepedia (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

After their wedding, the Doctor calls Rory "Mister Pond". But I don't think we need to change his name, either. --Ebyabe (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And what do reliable sources say about any name change? Old Crobuzon (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Content in the summary

Towards the beginning of the article, it says "She marries Rory Williams and gives birth to a daughter Melody, who is revealed to be the recurring character River Song." Surely that's not so crucial to her character that it belongs in the first paragraph, where anyone could see it? That doesn't really explain who she is as a person, that's just a couple of significant things that occur in her life. 82.33.33.19 (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Where anyone could see it" – it's not supposed to be top secret... ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 09:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, but equally, it's not exactly "basic info" in the same way the rest of that paragraph is. Got by for a good series and a half without a fair chunk of it. Meanwhile, we don't know where she lives, her occupation history... the article doesn't even use the word "Scottish" until the "Character Creation" section. Just saying that it sticks out a bit, given that it's in an intro where we've not really got the basics. Basically, I don't think that's the first thing the reader needs to know. 82.33.33.19 (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think the fact that she's River Song's mum is fairly significant (and is almost certain to become more so once the second half of the series airs). ╟─Treasury Tag►District Collector─╢ 08:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Real vs flesh

There's a dispute over the bolded phrase in In "The Almost People" it is revealed that the Amy present is actually an avatar version created with "the Flesh" and controlled by Amy's consciousness, which the Doctor destroys and sets off with Rory to find the real Amy, who is going into labour. It is clear to me from the episode cited (A Good Man Goes to War) that this is indeed the case. What is the reason to suppose otherwise? Old Crobuzon (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

In "The Rebel Flesh", the workers deliberately strap themselves into harnesses and control what their doppelgangers are doing – ie. they mentally process acid or whatever, and the ganger physically processes the acid. Their consciousness controls the ganger. However, while Amy is on Demon's Run, she is not controlling her duplicate in the TARDIS. <original research>Why would she co-operate with her captors by doing so? Why wouldn't she warn the Doctor about what's happening if it's her consciousness that's in command?</original research> Nowhere is it stated that she is doing so. It is clear that she is pregnant.
Let's put it this way: unless you can provide a quote from the episode or other reliable source to state that the ganger is "controlled by Amy's consciousness" then the statement should come out of the article as unreferenced. ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 07:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The emphasis on what is said as opposed to what is shown seems incorrect. We see things in previous episodes from Amy's point-of-view which is in fact the flesh version: then we see Amy returning to consciousness in her real body just before giving birth. The point of view shows us where Amy's consciousness is. We see it. The episode is a reliable source for what we see in the episode. The phrasing "controlled by Amy's consciousness" is a perfectly direct description of what we see. QED Old Crobuzon (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That is entirely your own interpretation and thus original research. I watched the same episodes that you did and I did not get the impression that Amy's consciousness was controlling the ganger, so perhaps this isn't as clear-cut as you thought. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chief Counting Officer─╢ 08:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It goes without saying that the avatar is controlled by Amy's consciousness...as is Amy's body. It's a little redundant actually. DonQuixote (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The phrase "controlled by Amy's consciousness" implies that Amy Pond, our Amy Pond, who is on the Doctor's side, is deliberately and specifically animating the ganger in the same way that the workers in "The Rebel Flesh" animated theirs. And that is clearly not the case: Amy is being held against her will, and the ganger is being maintained against Amy's will. ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 15:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems it's a matter of semantics. "Controlled by Amy", yeah I see what you're getting at, and you're right about that. "Controlled by Amy's consciousness"...ok, it's a little ambiguous and could go either way, the least controversial of which is being redundant (my consciousness controls my body). Either way, it probably doesn't belong. DonQuixote (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

On second thought...I think that the offending word is "controlled". That probably needs to be copyedited. How about "linked", which is more descriptive of the situation without being ambiguous. DonQuixote (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see why we need to add anything like this. Surely just saying that Amy has been kidnapped and replaced with a doppelganger formed of the Flesh (ie. what the article says now) is perfectly clear? ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 15:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think what the other side is concerned about is that a doppleganger can be controlled (deliberately or autonomously) by anyone. Again, it's that ambiguity thing. DonQuixote (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

But actually we don't know for a fact who was operating the ganger Amy. Amy herself obviously wasn't helping maintain the pretence that she hadn't been kidnapped. Was it the eyepatch lady? The headless monks? We just don't know so I don't think we should make a guess. ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 15:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Doctor mentions that Amy's visions of the eyepatch lady were instances of realilty bleeding through. Also the producers have mentioned that Amy was present in the episodes in spirit if not in body. So, it's Amy who's operating the avatar. DonQuixote (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is synthesis to reach that conclusion. (Not only that, but it makes no sense: why would Amy co-operate with her captors in that way?) Do you have a source which explicitly states Amy is operating the avatar? ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 15:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think "control" is the wrong word ... but, it's clear that it's the same consciousness shared at both locations. At the end of "The Almost People", the Amy onboard the Tardis is feeling contractions at the start of the scene where The Doctor reveals her to be an avatar made from the flesh. Then, in "A Good Man Goes to War", in the scene just after The Doctor provides the baby cot, the Amy at Demon's Run states ".. but this is where I was. The whole time I thought I was on the Tardis, I was really here." The Doctor replies "You were on the Tardis too - heart, mind, soul - but physically yes, you were still in this place." Amy then asks "And when I saw that woman looking at me through the hatch, that woman looking at me?" The Doctor answers "Reality bleeding through."

Those statements make clear that it's the same consciousness at both locations. Amy was not aware that her consciousness had been placed in the flesh, but yes, a single consciousness. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

"animated" would be a better fit since, Barek points out, the in-story material from the televised episodes has Amy stating she believed she was with the doctor for the ~9 months, not on Demon's Run.

Without that, the sentence implies that Ganger Amy is entirely independent of Amy.

- J Greb (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As the comments above show, it is perfectly clear how the flesh/real Amy connection works from both the episodes and production interviews, ie. that Amy was not aware she had been kidnapped and replaced, and her consciousness was in the ganger who was in turn unaware that she was not fully human. The phrase as written at the top of this section does imply that she is deliberately co-operating with the Kovarian et al's plans, which is obviously false. But to say only that she was replaced with a doppleganger as TT suggested implies that the ganger is aware of its identity and is deliberately deceiving the Doctor and Rory, which is again false. As long as the wording avoids these implications, then there shouldn't be an issue. U-Mos (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that ganger Amy is being controlled by real Amy's consciousness at Demon's Run. She isn't aware of her real body or where it is, except for the flashes, so she's certainly not deliberately cooperating to deceive the Doctor. And when the Doctor breaks the connection, ganger Amy dissolves and real Amy wakes. If ganger Amy had her own consciousness, as the gangers in the castle, she would be unaffected by breaking the connection. Amy says "I’m right here!" Doctor replies: "No, you’re not. You haven’t been here for a long, long time." Clearly, he's addressing real Amy, via the ganger. Barsoomian (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Main Image

The main image should really be changed. It is an unclear image of Amy Pond. The image is not even official, also. It has been taken by someone during production as you can see. I think for the main image we either have a screenshot, episode still or promotional image. 90.198.87.173 (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a freely-licensed image though, which is always preferred over non-free images. — Edokter (talk) — 16:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Randomduded, 22 September 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

please remove widow title "Video Games" Or Expand if appropreate

Randomduded (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Done ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 12:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Image

For previous discussions about the image please see Talk:Amy_Pond/Archive_1#Image_Discussion_Redux Thanks Edgepedia (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

her saddest memory/deja vu

In the "Good Night" mini episode she ends up cheering up her younger self who dropped her ice cream at the fair, her "saddest memory", should that (or her arrival later on, yay for time paradoxes) be part of her personality or other section? 173.181.118.88 (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course not.94.92.152.81 (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Summer Falls

I've noticed that the author thing in "The Bells of Saint John" has been removed several times as OR, but many reviews of the episode mention it and the BBC website says it is a reference. Good enough source? Glimmer721 ^talk 00:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

They say that it's a reference, but nothing says that it's Amy Pond. DonQuixote (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think whether or not it's accurate to say the character wrote the novel (that is to say that that was Steven Moffat's creative intent), it's not a terribly important part of her overall role in the series narrative and shouldn't be included unless in a future episode it has an important effect on either the unfolding narrative or the lead characters. Point of comparison; Rose Tyler doesn't mention her series four promotional photograph's mysterious apparition in Let's Kill Hitler.

It's fine for the episode article though.Eshlare (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

US English or UK English?

Which dialect should this be in? I'd hope UK for it being a UK based series and all. "backyard"? really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.28.141 (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's in British English, with series instead of seasons, programme and a section called Characterisation. Why, is there something not right? Edgepedia (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, is "backyard" not a UK term? What is the British equivalent, if that is the case? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 17:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

My dictionary has "'back yard': a yard at the back of a house". Back garden would be slightly better, but it's understood. (My dictionary also says yard is US and Canadian word for garden, and from MOS:COMMONALITY "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms". Edgepedia (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC) edited 19:02

I'm British and we say both Garden and Yard. Seems a bit pointless for someone to argue over such a simple word. I mean color - colour sure that would need changing but yard and garden are both used by us. Mishka Shaw (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Amy Pond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130410160116/http://www.idwpublishing.com:80/news/article/2224 to http://www.idwpublishing.com/news/article/2224/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://tv.ign.com/articles/121/1218789p1.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217025224/http://www.sfx.co.uk:80/2012/02/14/sci-fi-fantasy%E2%80%99s-14-greatest-romances/13/ to http://www.sfx.co.uk/2012/02/14/sci-fi-fantasy%e2%80%99s-14-greatest-romances/13/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)