# Talk:Weeping Angel

The weeping angels are not actually stone sculptures, they just resemble them, in the way daleks resemble salt and pepper shakers.  I am not a deletionist, so I won't revert the category, but it seems dubious at best.  Don't blink! μηδείς (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

For those who have not read the article, the weeping angels were inspired by real world statues, such as the one depicted in the article with a free image. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

the weeping angels were inspired by real world statues – and in particular, do you have any reference to support the claim that that particular statue is relevant? I know that the image is free; so is File:Margaret Thatcher.png, but there needs to be an actual reason to include it in the article. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 18:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
If you like, I can open an RfC to request wider input. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Considering that I've been searching for a real life statue that even vaguely resembles a weeping angel ever since I saw Blink, and have continued to fail in doing so, this notion that the species was inspired by real life weeping angel statues seems bogus.  The scant few which do exist look nothing like the ones in the series.Wyldstaar (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Should the article contain an unreferenced sentence and an arbitrary image observing the aliens' alleged visual similarity to Christian statues? 18:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please label your own comments with a section-header avoid threaded discussions within sections.


### Comments from TreasuryTag (involved)
I don't see how the comment that the Weeping Angels resemble Christian statues is helpful if there is no verifiable link. I think Paul Merton looks like Nick Griffin – but this fact (or 'opinion') is not worth noting unless a reliable source can be found to back it up.With regard to the image, more or less the same principle applies. I could put a picture of Westminster Abbey on the Houses of Parliament page: they certainly look similar. But unless I can back it up with references about their respective architectural styles, the observation is a useless one.The relevant Wikipedia guideline tells us that, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." Unless anybody can point me towards a verifiable source to the contrary, that is simply not true of the photograph in question.I would also like to take this opportunity to condemn Medeis (talk · contribs), whose refusal to discuss before entering into a revert-war has made the whole issue much more contentious than it need be. I can only suggest that they read WP:BRD, WP:OWN and WP:CON in addition to the more specific policy pages to which I've linked above. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 18:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Further to Medeis' response — he doesn't seem to understand that we need a reference more concrete (no pun intended) than a throwaway Moffat joke line about how fans like to think of every statue as a Weeping Angel. Is there a source reading, "The Weeping Angels were inspired by common graveyard statues," – if so, that would enable to sentence in the lede to be included. And if it continued, "...especially one in Massachusetts," then the picture would be backed up. But as it is, Medeis' comment doesn't address any of the policy issues I mentioned above, particularly the WP:IMAGE one. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


### Comments from Silver seren (uninvolved)
I agree that the part of the sentence in the lede that discusses the similarity to Christian statues should be removed unless it can be referenced, but I don't understand your comment about the image at all. It is an image from the show specifically about the subject. The correct comparison would be using a picture of the Westminster Abbey in the article about said Abbey. Obviously, that is appropriate. SilverserenC 19:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I may not have been clear that I was referring to this image – not the one from the episode. Apologies. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 19:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Yes then, I agree, it is obviously not applicable to anything discussed in the article. It seems fairly random. SilverserenC 19:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


### Comments from SarekOfVulcan (not very involved)
I don't know about the text, but lacking a quote from Moffat saying "I saw this statue in particular", we shouldn't have anything except an official image of some sort (screenshot, touring exhibition, etc.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


### Comments from Medeis (involved)
Feel free to remove the word Christian from the line in the lead but Moffat himself has said, my bold:SM: Blink is basically that statues game isn't it? That Grandma's Footsteps game which I always found frightening. I know kids find it exciting and interesting. And if you can do the thing like we do at the end of the episode where you say "and every statue out there is secretly a Weeping Angel..."  Come on!  If you ask people to recall the moments they remember of Doctor Who as you've been doing, how often is it they remember the scary bit? (http://www.stevenmoffat.net/smn.who.dwc3.10.htm)Given that this is the only actual free weeping angel statue image that I am aware of us having, I don't know what the opposition is to it for illustrating the real world object.
μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Treasury Tag is talking about the image further down in the article that is of a random statue in a cemetery. SilverserenC 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I know what Tag is "saying", although given his argument here in favor of adding a "random" picture of Buzz Aldrin because it is free and vaguely similar, I don't believe he actually means it.  μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
You don't think I actually "mean it" – that's a fascinating view of WP:CON you have there! ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 21:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


### Comments from Daicaregos (uninvolved)
Nice image. Completely irrelevant to this article, of course, and so should be removed. But a nice image all the same. Daicaregos (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line with this article is that the writer Moffat himself refers to real world statues and this is the most similar free picture of a relevant type real world statue which we have.
It is certainly illustrative to, say, non-Christian Indian or Chinese readers, not familiar with Western statues, of why Moffat finds this sort of thing frightening for his viewers. μηδείς (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but if there were a reliable source noting that this was the statue that inspired the writer, I guess this RfC wouldn't have happened. Without that RS, it is WP:OR. Even if there were evidence that Moffat has been to Massachusetts, and to that cemetery in particular, without that RS confirming it as his inspiration it is OR. The image should be removed, however nice it is. Daicaregos (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no such claim that this is an image of "the" statue that inspired Moffat.  There is no such text in the article.  It is simply a free image of a relevant type statue to illustrate then to readers who may not be familiar with them.  The current caption simply identifies where that particular statue is located.  If the text is confusing and implies that, then I would happily edit it, except that Tag has threatened  to file an AN3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 

You are supposed to avoid threaded discussion within sections, like it clearly says at the top, but whatever. There is no such claim that this is an image of "the" statue that inspired Moffat. I know that. There is no such text in the article. I know that too. Therefore it is pointless putting the picture of the statue in: it is only there because, in your opinion, it looks like a Weeping Angel. It's not a good lookalike, especially given the position it's in. The picture of an actual Weeping Angel already in the article is much better.Since a unanimous-but-one consensus seems to be forming that the image should be removed, I don't see the need to argue the point further with you.I would happily edit it, except that Tag has threatened  to file an AN3. Think about why I threatened to file an AN3 – could it be anything to do with the fact that you've been edit-warring on the article and are on the verge of the 3RR? ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 22:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, why are you responding for Daicaregos? Is he your sock puppet?  If not, I expect he can speak for himself. μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you point me towards the policy which says that editors are not allowed to respond to questions not specifically directed to them? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 07:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


### Suggested Verbiage
I suggest changing the sentence "Created by writer Steven Moffat, they resemble the stone angel statues that can be seen in some Christian cemeteries." to "Steve Moffat, their creator, attributes their appeal to childhood games such as Grandma's Footsteps and the notion from that every statue out there is secretly a Weeping Angel."<ref>http://www.stevenmoffat.net/smn.who.dwc3.10.htm</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 

I would oppose this on the grounds that self-published websites are not considered to be adequate sources. However, if a decent reference can be found, I have no problem with the sentence going in place of the 'Christian cemeteries' one. I still say that the image should be expunged, however. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 22:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Your adherence to policy is touching, so, since WP:SELFPUB Advises:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
the material is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.
I suggest you change the verbiage yourself. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
You're not using the source as a source about itself (you're not writing about the website). You're writing about the Weeping angels. Surely that's obvious? ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 07:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
"About themselves" means about the self-publisher not the self-publishing medium - The source in this case is Stephen Moffat himself and it's about his opinion that it's being used to verify - This is a perfectly acceptable use of a self-published primary source. If the caption on the image is suitably changed to refer to the "Every statue" quote then I don't see why it couldn't be retained under WP:OI if not it would need deleted. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
No, the source is not Steven Moffat. The source is www.stevenmoffat.net which is a fan-site not maintained by Mr Moffat himself. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 10:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually the source is Doctor Who Confidential from 9 June 2007, BBC3 which is a reliable source and citable. Use {{cite episode to do so. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
DWC? Fine. So that means that the proposed sentence above can go in. However, as numerous editors have opined here, the image is still arbitrary, random and inappropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 10:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Good, okay, so the new sentence should be put in, with a cite episode reference to the DWC episode. And the second image should be removed as it is arbitrary and has no direct commentary related to it. I think that's pretty much the consensus here. GO ahead, TreasuryTag. SilverserenC 10:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, although since I'm under 3RR escrow until about 3pm UK time, I won't edit for now. You folks are welcome to of course! ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 10:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
As long as the idea behind the use of the image is included in the article and it is clear the image is being used to illustrate that idea (and not introducing some unpublished idea like the idea that Stephen Moffat was influenced by this particular statue) then WP:OI accepts it's inclusion as preferred over the use of any non-free image of Angels in the series. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
It says nothing of the sort. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 10:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
That's the whole basis of WP:OI the encouragement of the use of free images and as it says "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". Some editors have raised concerns that this should be removed because it raises unpublished ideas, but I agree with Medeis that although the ideas weren't in the article; the idea was published in relation to the angels and can be illustrated with this image. Unlike Medeis I believe care should be taken in it's use to avoid giving the impression that it represents an unpublished idea but I don't think that this issue is insurmountable.   Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Well since the consensus is clearly against your position, I won't bother arguing this point for much longer, but just to clarify – am I right in saying that the only reason to include this image is that you think it resembles a Weeping Angel sufficiently to replace a picture of an actual Weeping Angel? Because if so, WP:IMAGE (which I quoted above) seems to suggest that it shouldn't be used. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 11:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Nope, I'm saying that it resembles the idea that Stephen Moffat raises of every statue being a weeping angel sufficiently that in order to illustrate that idea it is a better choice of image than a non-free image of an Angel from the TV series. I do not dispute the use of a non-free image illustrating the specific idea of the weeping angel creatures in the series being taken from the series - although we should copy over a free image of them from flickr; for instance this. I also think if tied to article content then this image does comply with WP:IMAGE.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, we've had that discussion about the 'free' angel image before, and the decision was that it's not actually free, because the BBC owns a copyright in the Angels, freedom of panorama etc. I didn't agree, but there we go.Meanwhile, I'm saying that it resembles the idea that Stephen Moffat raises of every statue being a weeping angel – you need to provide a source for that claim. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 11:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Point1 - I agree that freedom of panorama applies here and the image could be used - do you have a link to the discussion where it was rejected? Point 2 - Intepretation of WP:OI when the image is illustrating a concept has been challenged several times at WP:ORN; for instance [Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_18#Moe_anthropomorphism here] - the challenge nearly always fails and the image remains. No source is required to state that an original image  actually represents the concept that it is actually being used to represent, however manipulation of the image to represent a different concept that is not back by reliable text sources is not allowed. In this case Moffat notes in the confidential episode that the Doctor's use of the phrase "and every statue out there is secretly a Weeping Angel..." is the thing that makes the episode scary. I'm quite happy to take this discussion over to WP:OR to get some more eyes on it as you've already tried to get them across here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 September 22#File:Weeping-angel-flickr.jpg ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 14:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


### Comments from Eduemoni (uninvolved)
I think that if no verifiable source can be added to provide context of a comparison between a fictional race of aliens and Christian statues, then it should be removed, because so far no consensus of keeping it has been reached and it can somewhat confuse the reader that is going to assimilate Christian figures to the race introduced in Doctor Who series. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

if a weeping angel turns into stone when seen, then in the episode "flesh and stone" when the angels realize Amy Pond can't open her eyes,
and start to move, why do they still look like stone?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.81.221 (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC) 

Timey-wimey.--Gen. Quon (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
They're moving between frames!!170.146.227.4 (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)A Whovian

It says if two Weeping Angels look at each-others eyes they are both turned to stone forever.
Since they always turn to stone when someone's looking at them and if they're both looking at each-other neither can move. But if a person came by a turned one of them around so they aren't staring at each-other would they be fixed? Or is it permanent either way?
Dartpaw86 (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Dartpaw86

Good question. I think it's true that mutually "locked forever" Angels can be unlocked if someone or something moves them or otherwise interferes with their fields of vision. Custardslice7 (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

To add later:[1] Eshlare (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm from the UK and Steven Moffat is almost exactly the same age as me.  I saw The Time of Angels for the first time this evening and was immediately struck by the 'stone statues that only move when you're not looking at them' theme.  I was scared stiff as a kid by the British tv series Escape Into Night  [2] [3] (based on the book Marianne Dreams by Catherine Storr) which had standing stones which came closer and closer to a house and its trapped inhabitants, but you never saw them move.  They only came closer when you looked away. This tv series affected me so much as a kid that I still think about it, 40 years on - those creepy one eyed monoliths and their inexplicable ability to get closer and closer each time you looked away.  Did it have an effect on Moffat too?  Was it an inspiration for this episode?  The similarities seem just too great to be coincidental - stones/stone figures that only move when you're not looking at them.  I'm sure he must have been influenced by it. Has he mentioned it anywhere? 86.133.211.19 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll look around--note that it wouldn't just be an inspiration for this episode, but rather the Weeping Angels in general. So it would probably be compared to "Blink" instead, which was their first appearence. Glimmer721 talk 22:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The sound effects in the tv series were terrifying too - hissing and whispering stones.   The spookiest and most terrifying thing I'd ever seen - and this was at the time that Dr Who used to regularly send me behind the sofa.  It wasn't until I saw Eraserhead that I was similarly affected by the sound design of a programme or film. I remember Escape Into Night being the talk of the school playground that spring/summer. 86.133.211.19 (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Another similarity - in Escape Into Night the stones take over the radio in the house and it can't be turned off and so they are broadcasting in the house all the time. There's a scene in one of the Angels episodes where an angel is on a video which Amy can't turn off. 86.134.91.155 (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Also might the idea of 'things only moving when you're not looking at them' be influenced by the creepy M. R. James story "The Mezzotint"? (I'm going to copy all this over the the Weeping Angels talk page because I think it is of interest for there).217.42.143.118 (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The Day of the Doctor, first broadcast 23 Nov 2013, used a trope from "The Mezzotint" too - a figure in a painting that disappears from the painting, and then is back in the painting at a later date. I think we need Mark Gatiss to do "The Mezzotint" for the 2014 A Ghost Story for Christmas. 62.7.177.190 (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Ask and you shall be given 109.152.55.83 (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I see that "(also known as the Lonely Assassins" was added here, without an edit summary. I'm sure that it may well be correct and I've just not noticed this usage. (Believe me, I am absolutely prepared to accept that there are plenty of Wikipedia editors who watch Doctor Who more carefully than I do.) But the only thing I find odd is that having been mentioned in the lead paragraph it never seems to come back in the body text, so there's no explanation of who says it or when or why or whatever. Assuming it is correct, can we please have a bit more information on this usage to tie it better into the article? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it's from when the Doctor explains to the cop that was sent back to the 1960s in Blink (Doctor Who)...and that was it. DonQuixote (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I don't usually work on telly articles (oh you guessed ...) is there a way to verify and reference this, do you think? Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
We can watch the episode to verify it, and then we can use template:cite episode to reference it. DonQuixote (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, excellent, thanks very much. I'll try to remember to get round to this (but will not be upset if beaten to it by better-equipped editors, i.e. all of you!) :) I'd love to see it in there properly explained and referenced. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Finally got around to checking this...it's when Sally is talking to the Doctor via the DVD Easter Egg. DonQuixote (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've just made my account on wikipedia and my first edit was putting information about when the weeping angels appeared in "the time of the doctor" as before there was just a brief statement saying they 'would' appear rather then detailing the events in the 'appearences' section. Would be grateful if anyone could check the edit and suggest further improvements, thanks Lamakickmojo (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Lamakickmojo

Hi - I stumbled upon this page in search of a commons image of a Weeping Angel that could be used on Wikiversity.  Your current image is not allowed on commons, but since posting the suggestion that you need a section on Bell's theorem, I found the image.  I (or we) will develop Wikiversity:Bell's theorem and Wikiversity:Bell's theorem/Weeping Angels and link to this page soon.  edit recently revised by --Guy vandegrift (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


### Revert of the "easter egg" link
The image to the right was deleted by an experienced editor who enforces the rules of Wikipedia.  I have little doubt that DonQuixote was following Wikipedia guidlines in reverting.  I pose two questions:

Do the editors of this article want a sister-link to the Wikiversity website on Bell's theorem?  The answer should be Yes.  I am a professor of physics who has published 20 papers in refereed journals.  One was on Bell's theorem, and several were on Quantum mechanics.  The doctor has often said that Weeping Angels are quantum creatures who do not even exist while you are looking.  The question of whether hidden variables exist unless you look ("measure") is not so clear, but claiming that Hidden Variables don't exist until you measure them is well within the bounds of the consensus opinion on Bell's theorem.  If you wish, I can bring the Wikipedia editors into this conversation who are experts on Bell's theorem.  I believe they will back me up on my claim that Weeping Angels and Hidden Variables seem be to complimentary entities with almost opposite properties.  One thing Hidden Variables and Weeping Angels have in common is that many argue that neither actually exist in the real world (yes, sadly there are scientists who don't believe in a universe where Doctor Who exists)
Do you want the sister-link to Wikiversity:Bell's theorem to be the fun "easter-egg"?  Or, do you want the boring box shown just below the image.  We have looser rules on Wikiversity where I write, so I should not be the judge.  But given that the link is scientifically valid, and given that an article on the Weeping Angel is recreational in nature, I must insist that we bring other authorities on Wikipedia policy on this.  How far are we allowed to bend the rules in this case?  I know the doctor would take my side, if he really exists.  --Guy vandegrift (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


### I think I found a compromise
The "charges" against my edit are valid.  See:

Wikipedia:Piped_link#Intuitiveness
Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Principle_of_least_astonishment
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Piped_links
All of these say that an image with the caption "Don't blink" is inapproriate because the reader has no reason to see the Hidden Angel suddenly get larger.  And the reader has no expectation of stumbling onto a page of Quantum mechanics.  Moreover, the two adjacent images of the Hidden Angel is a bit of unnecessary decoration, as the editor noted on the summary made to the revert.
Here is my offer:
I will create section near the end on Hidden Angels and Quantum Mechanics.  By moving the second nearly identical image down the page we avoid the charge of overdecoration.  The heading will prepare the reader for a page on Quantum mechanics.  Anybody who knows Dr. Who would not be astonished to see the Angel suddenly seem closer after clicking a link that says "Don't blink".  Given the context, a larger image of the same angel on a quantum mechanics page is well within the guidelines of Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Principle_of_least_astonishment
@DonQuixote: Now that I have found what I am certain is a mutually agreeable solution, I can sincerely thank you for your actions.  --Guy vandegrift (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

In response to point 1 above, Wikipedia is trying to be an encyclopaedia. As a published physicist, you should remember that tertiary sources, such as encyclopaedias, rely on summarising secondary sources (published works in newspapers, journals, etc.). We would be glad to cite your work if you publish your analysis of fictional characters in terms of Bell's theorem, but please don't try to publish your original observations here. Thanks. DonQuixote (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
You said "cite your work", are referring to my work on Wikiversity or my work in Philosophical Quarterly?
If you are referring to Wikiversity and Qed-her, that is an educational work and I am not citing but making a sister link.  All I ask is that you include the image and make it possible to link to that image in a way that the reader is looking at the small angel on Wikipedia as it suddenly grows larger on Wikiversity.  Once the reader is on Wikiversity, you shouldn't worry.  As an editor of this article, your only concern is that the Wikiversity article is of good quality.
If you are referring to my reference to psychic phenomenon in the Philosophical Quarterly, then I share your concern.  I can assure you that others have been bewildered by this connection (I do not believe humans have psychic powers).  The article in Philosophical Quarterly is exactly the type of article that Wikipedia should cite, though it is a poor choice in this case for a number of reasons.  Once we get our differences behind us, I will look for another reference to the fact that particles have what almost seem to have telepathic or other powers.  That is what makes Bell's theorem so weird.
I need to ask, how does one go about seeking outside opinions on these questions?  I would like an outside opinion on using the image to set up a sister-link that keeps the reader's eyes on the little angel just before the big angel appears on Wikiversity.  The wikitext permits sister links, and I have used them on a few Wikipedia articles already.  I also concede that such links need to be carefully considered.  We need a third party here.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
3. A third possibility has occurred to me.  Perhaps "my work" refers to the actual text that I inserted into the Weeping Angel.  Yes, that has to be not my opinion and it must be relevant to the TV series, and well sourced, as well as suitable to the general reader.  I am concerned that I spoke too much about quantum mechanics, but added that prose because I thought that is why you reverted my first insertion of the image and sister-link to Wikiversity. I agree that one or two sentences and the image with the link inside the caption is all we really need.  Do you want me to shorten this section?--Guy vandegrift (talk)


### A third attempt at rewrite
My first attempt was the image at the start of the article with no explanation.  The caption contained the sister link to Wikiversity:Bell's theorem in a way that made the small image suddenly get bigger.  That was reverted, and in response to the stated reason for the revert, I created the section "Quantum Mechanics".  In my third attempt, I will be as brief as possible, change the title, but keep the material in the same place.  It should take me an hour or so.  Please don't revert till I am finished.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 Done I moved the inline sister link to the bottom, just above the external links.  I put it above the external link because the connection to quantum mechanics is part of the text of this article:  It is always important when the science and the fiction of science-fiction are well matched.  I also shortened the text, leaving out virtually all the science, since that obviously does not belong here.  I put the link inside the figure caption because those not interested in Bell's theorem will enjoy watching the angel suddenly seem closer (bigger). It is now a glorified inline-sister link to a related topic on Wikiversity, with an image and a little trick that makes the angel jump towards the reader.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The caption contained the sister link to Wikiversity:Bell's theorem in a way that made the small image suddenly get bigger...I put the link inside the figure caption because those not interested in Bell's theorem will enjoy watching the angel suddenly seem closer (bigger).
That's a cutesy fansite type of link and unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedia articles should be written in a formal style.
As to the text itself, it requires citation of a reliable secondary source (you citing your own work in a journal is bending the rules a little bit, but I won't make too much of a fuss about it) with no synthesis or original research.  DonQuixote (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I have never taken a case to higher authority, but I would like to do that here.  The term "cutesy fansite" is clear and not offensive.  But it is a subjective opinion that can be properly challenged.  How does one go about challenging this.  We are in a one-to-one tie.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

WT:WHO, WP:PUMP, WP:3O, etc.
DonQuixote (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


### A request for other editors of this page for input
Withdrawn by contributor.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
We both agree is a "cutsie fansite" gimmick, but if you click on the words in the figure caption, you go to Wikiversity where the angel suddenly grows bigger.  This is a link between two different wikis.  But the small image is on Wikiversity, so its your call. Here is how I would do the section:
Quantum mechanics
Weeping Angels are described as quantum-locked entities that do not exist if one attempts to observe them.  Observation also plays an important role in the theory of quantum mechanics (see Schrödinger's cat). Bell's theorem is no-go theorem of quantum mechanics that concerns the existence or non-existence local hidden variables. 
While weeping angels don't exist while they are being observed, it can be argued that hidden variables  don't exist until they are observed.  In this sense, hidden variables and weeping angels are complementary entities.

 Click the words in the caption of the figure to the right to learn about Bell's theorem and hidden variables on Wikiversity.This is not one of those issues that needs to be analyzed or debated.  It's a matter of preference, and those who work on this article should decide.  I am just offering a suggestion.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Reques

So, I seem to remember and episode where they were described as quantum beings. Essentially, Schrodinger cat type of idea, where when you are observing them, they are stone, but when not observing them, they are both stone and not stone. Which is why what you look at them, they freeze, but move when you are looking away. That also explains the quantum lock thing, where if you can get them to look at each other, they get stuck that way.
Does anyone know what episode it was, were that was explained?
(Note: I might be misremembering, and it was a writers/directors interview). Bpappin (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Gaiman put himself as item 1 on the list (following link for easy verification), bringing the Angels to item 4, not three.
Perhaps for lols, but that doesn't change the item order and a comment or note should be made if the article is going to take liberties.
Arcsoda (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)