Template talk:Christinas

Not Incarnations

Incarnations of Christina Cwej

I have a couple of issues with this table/template.

First of all, we need to establish one thing: cwejen are a species. Even if the text is ambiguous about this, our page on them is called [[Cwej (species)]|cwej(species)], and as we sstrive for continuity wherever possible, we should be consistent here. No species has an "incarnations" table, because thats clearly nonsense. The only thing different about the "christinas" to the other cwjen is that they are female; it causes misunderstanding to treat them all as incarnations of Christina Cwej because they justaren't.

The only female cwejen who could possibly be considered "incarnations" would be the 4 "Christine Summerfield"s. But even they are not - they're simply four different female cwejen with similar physiology (and memory? I can't remember if fhey all remember being Blonde girl (Dead Romance) or not. If not, there's even less of an argument to say they are incarnations of each other). Whilst I'm on the topic of the Christine Summerfields, they're named incorrectly . The first one is called First Christine Summerfield and this continues, with an exception at Eliza uo to Fourth Christine Summerfield. This, again, implies they are all somehow incarnations of a Time Lord, or at least some kind of regenerator, when they sinply are not. We already have a practice, if not policy, for naming individuals with the same name who debut in the same source - arabic numerals! For an example of this, see The Doctor 2 (Rose), which is named as such because it would of course be completely nonsensical to name it Second Doctor (Rose), as that would imply they were a version of the Second Doctor. So i propose we rename those three pages to Christine Summerfield 1 ect (although - does that need to be discussed on their individual talk pages?).

Nevertheless , the situation with the Christinas template is more dire, because it is actively confusing users - as an example, i thought all of them reincarnated in some way, rather than all just being different versions of Chris Cwej.

Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 07:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The five variations of Christina seen in The Five Christinas were specifically stated to be counterparts of the same person and each held the same universal quality that made them a target by CERN. And the three other clones of Christina from Dead Romance were created using the same hybrid of Chris/the blonde girl rather than just being clones of Chris-only like the rest of the Cwejen. Therefore I think that this template is completely necessary, although maybe it could be renamed as Counterparts of Christina like the templates for the Pete World counterparts. Also, in terms of the naming of the Christina clones, each one was stated to have been created first, second, third, etc. I don't see any issue with naming them First Christina Clone. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 20:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright, if the five from that story where, sure. I haven't read that so I can't comment on it.

That's a different case tho. If anything, this discussion should result in a new template for Christine Summerfields, separate to Christinas. I presume that was a typo, and you meant to say "First Christine Clone"? As they are not, as far as I know, based off Christina Cwej, only off the blonde girl and Chris Cwej. And, as I stated before, the reason to name them cardinally (specifically, arabically) instead of ordinally is because the cardinals "First" ect make them look like incarnations, which they just aren't (and yes, I've read Dead Romance). They're iterations of the "Christine Summerfield Project" (or whatever), sure, but they aren't incarnations of each other - there isn't a continuity of consousness. But more importantly, it isn't useful useful to readers to cover the 5 Christine Summerfields as incarnations, because even if one could argue it on a very technical and pedantic basis (the argued would be wrong, but it could be made), that wouldn't be helpful to readers as they would, by default, imagine First Christine Summerfield turning into Second Christine Summerfield in some way, which very certainly does not happen. Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 23:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

In Dead Romance each clone was specifically created first, second, third and then forth, and killed in that order too. I don't think that having them named to reflect this order is in any way confusing. Although maybe they could be turned into First Christine Summerfield clone, etc? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 06:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they were. But I feel you didn't read my message clearly enough, but to clarify. This wiki isn't solely a "Dead Romance" wiki, rather it is a Doctor Who wiki. Hence, the average person seeing a page here will be a Doctor Who fan, and so will be familiar with "First" ect being used for Time Lords, or at least people who turn into each other. For this reason I think we should rename the pages 1, 2, and 4. But this thread isn't actually about renaming Christine Summerfields, it's about the Christinas template. My argument there is that the Christine Summerfields should be removed from it, because they aren't incarnations of Christina Cwej (unlike "Glasses" ect). Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 10:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)