Jump to content

Talk:Rory Williams

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...but who the hell is Rory? --78.151.223.210 (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- No idea. He rings no bells at all. Nominate for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.192.150 (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Amy's fiancé according to the script for 'Vampires of Venice' and the end of 'The Eleventh Hour'. 86.169.123.139 (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even more technically, he is only Amy's boyfriend in the middle of The Eleventh Hour. At the end of the Eleventh Hour (which happens a couple years later), we know she's engaged and going to be married the next morning. It's not until Flesh and Stone, that we find out she's engaged to Rory.Karinagw (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a possiblity that there is something more to him. The hospital ID card on his was issued in 1990, which doesn't add up for the age he was meant to be. --Welshsocialist (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is heading into WP:NOTAFORUM territory, but Steven Moffat says in this interview that the ID card was just a production error. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Companion

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Please keep discussion centralised at Talk:The_Vampires_of_Venice#Rory_.3D_companion_.3F. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctor takes him to 17th Century Venice. I think that this qualifies him as a companion. Hektor (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say with 100% certainty at this point; if he only comes at Amy's insistence and swears off all TARDIS travel at the end of it, would that count?
And please don't read too much into one example. My point is, until it's clear from the story, there's no need to jump the gun. He has this article, he's a 'supporting character', and viewers can make up their own minds as to his full status until the show clarifies it for us. Radagast (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of "The Hungry Earth" : In the latest episode of the time-travelling drama, written by Chris Chibnall, the Doctor, Amy and Rory arrive in a tiny mining village and find themselves plunged into a battle against a deadly danger from a bygone age. Goes with the Doctor in the past - 1580 - then in the future - 2015 - sounds like companion to me. Hektor (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most definatly is after tonights episode KnowIG 20:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please keep discussion centralised at Talk:The_Vampires_of_Venice#Rory_.3D_companion_.3F AlexanderJBateman (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Surname

[edit]

Should this be moved to Rory Pond now that he's married Amy and changed his surname?Dalek9 (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has a character called Rory Pond appeared in an episode? Have the BBC changed either Amy's[1] or Rory's[2] name on their website? Are characters called Amy Pond and Rory Williams appearing in the Christmas Special?[3] Do you think that the Doctor could have been joking when referring to him as Mr Pond? Edgepedia (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he did change his name, there's no reason to move the page. AnemoneProjectors 16:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. No indication that Rory was serious about the Doctor's whimsical statement. Even if he was, which he quite definitely wasn't, WP:COMMONNAME still applies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DWM call him Rory Pond on the front page of this month's issue. Sceptre (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How odd. He's definately Rory Williams in "A Christmas Carol" [4] Edgepedia (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The end-of-episode credits for A Christmas Carol, The Impossible Astronaut, and Day of the Moon have him as just "Rory". In any case, I think this should be moved to Rory Pond, given evidence suggests that he did take his wife's name. Sceptre (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/characters/Rory_Williams PoisonedPigeon (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that would be a move to Rory, anyway? I noticed that, but he was credited as Rory Williams in the confidental just afterwards, and the link above credits him as Rory Williams on "A Christmas Carol", which is after the Wedding. He's also credited as Rory Williams in "The Curse of the Black Spot" in the Radio Times. [5]. Edgepedia (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Williams has always been Rory Williams. Occasionally The Doctor, who is alien, gets away with calling him Rory Pond. In The God Complex, The Doctor pointedly addresses Amy for the first time as Amy Williams. --TS 06:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliation - Amy Pond

[edit]

So, several times an affiliation has been added to Amy Pond and then reverted. Ian Chesterton is displayed as affiliated to Barbara Wright and Susan Foreman (comapanions he travelled with), and Mickey Smith is displayed as affiliated to Rose Tyler... although this pattern is not consistent across other companions. What is the standard supposed to be? I say he should be affiliated to Amy. PoisonedPigeon (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliation is such a shit field anyway. It is useful to say which Doctors because in a real world sense this helps you place the character from the infobox. Why is a girlfriend an affiliation? It's asinine.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way to solve the issue is to have a "relations" field added to the infobox template. Not saying it's a good or bad idea, simply that it would fix misuse of the "affiated" field. There should be discusssion before it's done, though. --Ebyabe (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rory's Species

[edit]

Since Rory, unlike most humans can remember nearly two thousand years of history, even though the Universe was rebooted, among other things, shouldn't we have the infobox state that he is NOT Human, and in fact an Auton?82.0.25.104 (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Lance T.[reply]

Nope because he isn't one. Mezigue (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's human, because he's the result of his original timeline being rebooted. He's not an Auton, and yet some how he retains the memories of the time when he was one… this article really needs to address THAT - how does Rory still have those memories? —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 23:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Universe was rebooted, (the Doctor explained that the entire shebang could be extrapolated from what remained, therefore it would have to be the universe that already existed, and not a changed one, but the thing was that it was to basically recreate the old one. The events which led up to Rory's death and "resurrection" presumably still happened, (O.R., I know) so that this is why he possessed these memories, and also his implied physical capabilities when getting to "Amy" on Demons Run. (He did not appear to be armed) He was still referred to as "The Last Centurion" which would imply that he underwent at least some of the events in the original timeline.82.0.25.104 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Lance T.[reply]
We don't know because Steven Moffat never told us how. It's not Wikipedia's place to address that issue (original research). DonQuixote (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointless and unnecessarily condescending response as usual. Your response assumes that everything that can be improved in the article already has been done so… which is hardly ever the case on WP. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 03:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DonQuixote's response doesn't say anything at all to suggest that the article cannot be improved. He correctly stated that the article cannot provide unsourced speculation about why Rory possesses the memories of his Auton duplicate. Maybe his memories were restored based on how Amy remembered him. Maybe there's some other reason. Maybe there's no reason. The article cannot say without a reliable source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested that something unsourced should be added. It goes without saying that it would need to be sourced. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 14:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Jeffro77, the Doctor explained that the universe would be recreated as an extrapolation which basically entail making a COPY of the old one. The universe we now have is in fact a copy, including all of its residents, which may or may not include the Doctor & co.(Eye of the storm and all that)82.0.25.104 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Lance T.[reply]

If it's incredibly problematic and requires explanation, then leave the field blank. Article prose, then, will explain. Or, leave it as "Human".~ZytheTalk to me! 23:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Rory was an Auton, or other non-human species, that would mean that River Song was half-Auton or half-whatever. Alternatively, Rory isn't really her father. Unless there are reliable sources that discuss those issues, I can't see how the current "incarnation" of Rory can be anything other than human. I agree with prior discussion that "Human" remain in the infobox, and the article expand on his Auton history. --Ebyabe (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the whole Auton thing… do we really even know that Rory's human? We know that he lived on earth since he was a child, but we know nothing of his parents or birth. The official site doesn't mention him specifically as human, and the best we have to back that up as far as I know is the Doctor asking him why he has to be "so human" which is really a descriptive term that could apply even if he were another species. It seems to be an assumption, rather than a verified fact.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That can be said for a lot of characters. Unless there's some further information (like Turlough), speculating that an Earthbound character isn't human is original research. DonQuixote (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing that we speculate anything in the article, so it's not OR. In fact, I'm trying to remove speculation from the article. Information like that, unless it's verifiable, doesn't belong in the article. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 19:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing a possible non-human origin for any earth-based character, without any obvious cause, is speculation and original research. For example, proposing that Harry Sullivan might be non-human because his parents weren't shown (or even his childhood) is speculation. (Do we really even know if Harry is human?) DonQuixote (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Sullivan didn't have a daughter who can regenerate.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 04:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry's daughter has never been shown...which adds to the fact that this is all speculation. As I've just mentioned in another talk page, if you can find a reliable source that says that Rory is not human (ie supports POV), then go ahead and cite it. DonQuixote (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I had, I of course would have already done so. My point here is not that I somehow know he's NOT human; I'm making no leaps of speculation in the article by suggesting here in this discussion that the fact that his daughter can regenerate does cast doubt on whether or not classifying him as "human" is a verifiable truth. The lack of proving the classification definitively to the contrary does not prove its truth - that's a logical misstep. For Rory, we do have "further information" (like you said above) that casts doubt on whether this is a verifiable truth. That would be true of Harry as well, if we had such information, but we don't, so nothing has called the assumption that "found on earth = human" into question in that case, though it's still an assumption in either case.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Melody being able to regenerate is explained by being conceived in the time vortex. The source I cite is "A Good Man Goes to War". There is nothing to indicate that Rory is non-human, not even having Melody as his daughter: see "A Good Man Goes to War" and "Day of the Moon" ("time head"). If you question my sources, then feel free to criticise them. Otherwise, cite a source that cast doubts on Rory being human. DonQuixote (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok :) The explanation you're referring to is qualified by " The Doctor surmises that…" and within his theory he uses the word "likely". It's a loose theory presented by a fictional character—hardly definitive, and certainly not enough to remove any doubt of Rory's biology. A source can't cast doubt. A source eliminates doubt.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 18:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A source can cast doubts by saying that the Doctor is wrong or that the Doctor is lying. You or I doing that would be speculation and original research. Currently, the only source we have is the primary source, and there is nothing in it that says Rory isn't human. DonQuixote (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, "cast doubt" was a poor choice of words. A better phrase would be "imply that he is non-human", which is what you're trying to do. DonQuixote (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia can't (or shouldn't) imply anything. It's either a verifiable fact, or it isn't.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 19:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er...that's my point. Please cite a source saying that he's not human. DonQuixote (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the source would be yours to cite, not mine, as you're the one in the position to defend the inclusion of material. Does this qualify for an exception to WP:BURDEN? —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 23:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rory doesn't need to be proven human no more than Harry Sullivan, Jackie Tyler, Craig Owens, Sherlock Holmes, Jean Valjean or anyone else. The extraordinary claim is that he's not human--which is the thing that needs to be proven. The burden of proof lies with the extraordinary claim. The "new materiaL" is claiming that there's cause to think that he's not human. So the burden of proof is still on you.
An example of how this works is, Turlough has been proven to be not human because the primary source says that he is an exile from Trion. DonQuixote (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing to add anything new to the article, but rather casting doubt upon (and thus the need for sources on) material that is currently in the article. Rory has a daughter who can *regenerate*. Rory has millennia of memories, and has had the ability to maintain his consciousness and personality in an Auton form. Neither of these have been explained to the point that it's reasonable to simply assume that his species is "human". Without a source, it's just that - an assumption. An unsourced assumption = *Citation needed.* I am making no claims, extraordinary or otherwise, in the article. The only claim in question here is that Rory is "human". I'm not claiming that he's definitively "not human" either - but rather that this information is in question, and thus shouldn't be included in the article unless verifiable. My recommendation, if there are no sources to verify it, would be removal of the unverified info (as with anything else on Wikipedia).—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Implying, in one way or another (including casting doubt), that Rory is non-human is adding something new. You're speculating that he must be non-human in order for any of the above to happen. That is pure speculation. There is nothing in the primary source to suggest that none of this could ever happen to a human. You're trying to imply this, which is adding something new. You need a source that verifies your speculation. DonQuixote (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are needed for information that's in the article - not for what's removed from it. If your defense of your edit is accurate ("Rory was introduced a human in his first appearance") then add a source to verify the claim.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article, particularly "Early life". DonQuixote (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's not defined as a "human" in the article. (Child. Nurse. Friend. Not "human") Even if he were, you can't use another section of an article as a source for information in the same article. And if it were, I would say "citation needed" there too. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will some other editors please chime in here? Does the inclusion of this info need to be sourced, or does the assumption that Rory is "human" despite the aforementioned information casting reasonable doubt on the matter warrant it to be sourced? DonQuixote and I are clearly at a standstill on this, and he keeps reverting my edits where I ask for a source in the article. We need to reach a consensus via other editors chiming in.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's human. If he were plastic, and yet fathered a child with his wife, it probably would have been mentioned - but even failing that, he's been referred to explicitly as human in dialogue (Day of the Moon). If there is a source that claims that he is still an auton, or something else entirely, then we need that citation - and I note that no such sources have been provided. Note also that "Human, but with lots of memories" isn't a useful designation in this context. Thus, he's human. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The article can explain the details of his history (that's what it's for). But for the infobox, let's stick with human. --Ebyabe (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Ultraexactzz If indeed "he's been referred to explicitly as human in dialogue (Day of the Moon)" then that is something that can (imo *should*) be be cited as a source to verify it. Otherwise, it's an assumption.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said in my original response, that can be applied to any character...such as Harry Sullivan, Jackie Tyler, Martha Jones, etc. It doesn't make much sense to apply it to them either. DonQuixote (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, none of those characters have a daughter who can *regenerate*.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that making him not human is speculation and original research. DonQuixote (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could speculate all day here in the discussion that Rory has six heads, or is secretly a Dalek, or that he's his own grandfather and Rory is a funny nickname for "ouroboros"… but the only speculation that equates to Original Research has to do with edits in the article.
I'm not speculating that he's "not human" - nor am I trying to insert that into the article - I'm stating the fact that there's not a source for calling him "human" in the article. So far the ONLY speculation that is IN THE ARTICLE is stating that he is "human".
The solution here is very simple. If it's so certainly true, then just add a source. Otherwise, I see no reason why a "citation needed" tag (which i added previously; the subject of the edit war with DonQuixote from earlier today, and I assume the reason for the article protection) is not valid. If it's verifiable… then verify it. If it's not, then it doesn't hold up to WP standards and should be removed. Come on… we all know by now that's how this works.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 21:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that could be applied to any character, and would be just as redundant. DonQuixote (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should, but that's a discussion for somewhere else. It's still an assumption, and unsourced. I see no reason to argue my point further; I can't say it another way. This is in the hands of everyone else now.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 21:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through this discussion it seems a very tenuous argument. Rory is a character who was introduced as human (in as much as any human character, Rose, Micky, Amy etc. have) and was treated as human right up until his death in 'Cold Blood'. His appearance as an Auton seems to be fully explained in 'The Pandorica Opens' and by the end of 'The Big Bang' the universe is meant to be reset, with a human Rory so that the events of 'Cold Blood' etc never happen. Given we see him nearly drown in 'The Curse of the Black Spot', age in "Let's Kill Hitler" and get knocked out in 'The Girl Who Waited' I think it's fairly clear he isn't an Auton.
The fact his daughter can regenerate I don't see as any reason to doubt he's human, given this is explained at least twice as being a result of conception occurring in the TARDIS. Plus this argument would conclude he is a Timelord, which again given the events of 'The Curse of The Black Spot' and 'The Girl Who Waited' doesn't really stand up.
While of course it's possible that in a future episode he will be revealed as a dastardly alien at the moment all we can say is that he is as human as any of the other (presumed) human characters and as such I don't see why his article should be any different on this point. Speekingleesh (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the article has been protected, a consensus can be reached on the issue. Actually I think it already has. To leave Rory's race as human. --Ebyabe (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: the consensus sought here is to determine whether or not "human" in the infobox should remain in the article unsourced, because it deserves an exception to the general policy. If, on the other hand, the consensus is that multiple editors hold the opinion that Rory is "human", or that most of the editors here are comfortable assuming that he's human, that's not a valid reason to leave it.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 21:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever consensus you were seeking, it seems that a consensus is forming to leave "Human" uncited. If you disagree with that consensus, as it seems that you do, your next step would be a Request for Comment on the matter. Either way, it is clear that adding the citations needed tag to "Human" as a race is controversial, so - if the article becomes unprotected - please do not add it back until after a consensus to do so forms. That said, it's still early days yet and there is no deadline - plenty of time to get more opinions here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Wikipedia:When_to_cite doesn't this really fall under 'Subject specific common knowledge'? Speekingleesh (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ, I can't believe that people are even having this discussion! Can anyone say 'Occam's Razor'? As far as his memories go, The Doctor EXPLAINS that things like deja vu and Rory's memories are down to timelines being changed, so there isn't much of an argument to say he's an auton. And if he was, how the hell did he get Amy pregnant? With plastic sperm? As someone else has said, River Song's ability to regenerate is due to the TARDIS. Rory being a Time Lord? Honestly! Speaking of which, anyone remember 'A Good Man Goes to War'? Remember when they look at Mel's/River's DNA? They say that although she has traits similar to Time Lord DNA that SHE IS HUMAN. Which means that she must have two human parents. I'll just wait for someone to come along and argue that Rory might not be the father and that thinking that he is, is speculation. groovygower (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

[edit]
Note: The article has been fully protected due to the ongoing content dispute. Please take this time to discuss and attempt to reach consensus on the material in question. If needed, refer to WP:DR for guidance on achieving dispute resolutions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Ebyabe (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ponds' final episode

[edit]

I think it's wrong at this stage to remove as "premature" the definitive information that Steven Moffat has set the New York episode to be that in which Arthur and Karen's characters depart from the series.

Here in an interview, Steven Moffat and (producer) Caroline Skinner say why they chose New York for the final episode with the Ponds. They describe the read-throughs. At the time of the interview, July, the Ponds' final episode had long been in the can. --TS 22:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it is premature so long as those episodes have not aired. Mezigue (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does air date matter? Airing plays no role in establishing external facts related to an episode. --TS 12:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It matters because these are characters in a TV show and so long as an episode has not aired it might as well not exist! Mezigue (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how we write about television shows. We write with an emphasis on "out of universe" events. One important such event is the writing, rewriting and filming of the final episode featuring the Ponds. It's been reported on, if you've followed the links you've seen the interviews in which writer and show runner Steven Moffat, his producer, and the three main actors concerned talk about this. It's a verifiable event in the real world. It exists. --TS 19:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this is an in universe/out of universe issue. Whether the episode has aired or not is very much a real life event! Mezigue (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the general reader won't necessarily know that it's a scheduled episode and assume that it has already aired. For the purposes of the article being written for the general reader, it shouldn't be included as yet. DonQuixote (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another interview in which the cast members discuss the final scenes, naming the episode explicity as number 5 (Angels take Manhattan). --TS 08:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rory Williams. 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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rory_Williams&oldid=1210117146"