# Talk:The Girl Who Waited

Has turned into a someone said it therefore it must appear. Yet on the 4th dimention they only mention 2 continuity facts and both are not quoted here. Either the section needs to be basically deleted/merged. Or someone needs to put sources to the other episodes in but still IMO wouldn't be good enough. All of it at the moment screams Original Research even if it had refs in. Globalwheels (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Continuity can be applied to primary sources, but they have to be obvious.  Amy calling the Doctor her "Raggedy Doctor" is clearly tying with her childhood, and the aspect of the Doctor wearing a fez is also clear.  On the other hand, Rory stating "I'm sorry, I'm so sorry", despite it being the same line Tennant would use, could simply be happenstance. Yes, we would love to have third-party sources to make connections for us (if a source made the Rory-Tenth line claim, that we would include), but anything that is clearly obvious but not trainspotting can likely get away with it.  --MASEM (t) 15:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no contradiction in the TARDIS accepting two Amy's in 'Time' and not accepting SamurAmy and Amy in 'The Girl Who Waited' because the situations are different. In 'Time' they are both from the same timestream, just different points in it. In 'The Girl Who Waited' they would be from different timestreams once Amy got rescued. In fact, SamurAmy's timestream would cease to exist. That's the paradox. You can't have Amy and SamurAmy in the TARDIS because SamurAmy only exists if Amy isn't rescued.--87.208.87.38 (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Because there is no real world phenomena as time travel, and that the DW universe has been very inconsistent in its approach, we cannot be making up theories as to why this case is unique compared to previous cases, unless specifically backed by a third-party source. We can note that we've seen the TARDIS carry two versions of the same individual in the past, and thus an oddity here. But why this is an oddity, we cannot speculate (I could argue that the Doctor lied to Rory about the inability to take older Amy to force him to make a choice, but that's complete fan speculation). --MASEM (t) 17:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering about this and just checked the episode. The Doctor says "There can never be two Amy's in the TARDIS. The paradox is too massive". If the continuity is restored this needs to be added; the reader can decide on its relavance. Edgepedia (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
To say something to the effect of, "In this episode, the Doc says that there can't be two of the same person in the TARDIS simultaneously. In previous episodes X, Y and Z, this was possible," is a classic example of synthesis, because it could either be read as pointing out a contradiction (original research) or as simply observing two completely unrelated facts (eg. "This episode featured the word kindness, which was also featured in 'Aliens of London'"). Read the examples at WP:SYN. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 17:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of 

"There have been previous episodes showing two instants of the same character inside the TARDIS. For example there where two Amys, two Rorys and two Eleventh Doctors in "Time", two Doctors in The Three Doctors and "Time Crash", and two Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewarts in Mawdryn Undead. In this episode the Doctor says "There can never be two Amy's in the TARDIS. The paradox is too massive".
The first sentence is listing example episodes. The second is quoting a line from the episode.
(Sorry about the English ... must go) Edgepedia (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think (OR) the key difference is what was said before, as long as there is a continuity in the persons life it should be possible (as in space/time the doctor does his best to make sure the continuity is preserved). Taking both Amy's would brake the continuity of the older version because she now has no apparent origin, at least not in the same reality as the young version and reality should branch to sustain it, making the old version from another universe. On the other hand, most of Moffats era is one big ontological paradox. LOTG (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if there should be an addition to the Continuity section that mentions the recent theme of calling the morality of the Doctor's action into question. For me, Rory saying "then i don't want to travel with you" and "this is what you do... you make people want to impress you" (Vampires in Venice) is very highly related no only to each other but the continuity of the series in general. I would also make a connection between Rory's outburst and River's rebuking of the Doctor at the end of A Good Man Goes to War, where she says "This is exactly you. All of it," as well as the idea that the Doctor is a weapon or a warrior. It was said that too be included in Continuity it had to be obvious. To me, this is an obvious connection  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.144.158 (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 

We need to be very careful about how we interpret the story, and your suggestion does seem to move towards and perhaps over the line of what we would call synthesis. The section WP:SYNTH is worth reading. Edgepedia (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source for the spelling of the planets name? I have seen 3 different spellings thus far and it's impossible to get it from the spoken dialog.
The Doctor Who planets page spells it in 2 of them: Apalapacia (aka. Appalappachia).LOTG (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The BBC spells it Apalapucia here. Edgepedia (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice find, thanks! LOTG (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Girl Who Waited/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 18:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is really solid. Just one concern:

How is "Celluloid Heroes Radio" a reliable source? I couldn't find any sort of peer-review system or panel of editors. Just thought I'd ask. If nothing can be found, I would suggest just removing it.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
On hold for seven days.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's apparently a radio show of some kind. I've removed it; it was added by someone else before I added the rest of the critical reception section and I didn't want to remove it and appear exclusive to everything outside the usual sources, but oh well. It didn't add very much anyway. Glimmer721 talk 22:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, looks good. I pass!--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Girl Who Waited. 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/20120328192125/http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/09/11/review-of-doctor-who-%E2%80%98the-girl-who-waited%E2%80%99/ to http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/09/11/review-of-doctor-who-%E2%80%98the-girl-who-waited%E2%80%99/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 21:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

If Amy was 7 when she first met the Doctor, then waited 12 years, then 2 more, wouldn't that make her 21 at the beginning of the episode, and the older Amy who waited 36 more years would be 57? Someone should check this, and add it to the article. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:B893:2A77:3A91:8060 (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is Original Research, so we can't include this in the article. She traveled in the TARDIS for an unknown amount of time, and even by your math, she could be anywhere from about 55 to 60 or so, as she wouldn't have waited exactly 12 years, then 2 then 21.

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

The Girl Who Waited.webp
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)