Talk:Regeneration

	Archives: #1, #2

Image change

While not initially brought up by me, a user believes the image should be updated given the latest regeneration. I personally see no reason to change it other than "it is the latest regeneration visual", but then we never changed it when 11 changed into 12 so such reasoning feels redundant to me. The current also lacks the distracting rotor blocking a portion of the scene. Here's the proposal matched against the current image:

• 

  Current image

• 

  Proposal #1

Thoughts anyone? Snivystorm ☎ 19:39, December 26, 2017 (UTC)

I think keeping it up to date is a good idea, it shows what it's like now, rather than what it used to be. BenMoore512 ☎ 16:20, December 29, 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this image should be used if the rotor is really that much of a problem:

(24.205.83.199^{talk to me} 02:32, January 3, 2018 (UTC))

The suggested image cannot be used on any in-universe pages because it doesn't have the proper license. As it stands, it can only be used on user pages. Shambala108 ☎ 02:47, January 3, 2018 (UTC)

Even if it could be used, I don't see how it is superior to the current image; the Doctor's back is facing the camera and they have only used a golden lightning-like effect for regeneration once so far while they have used the golden explosion/burst the most throughout Doctor Who; even the 8th Doctor and now the 1st have regenerated displaying the golden energy. Snivystorm ☎ 10:52, January 3, 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, Tardis:Guide to images requires images to be distinct at thumbnail level (this image isn't) and it also says "avoid the ass shot" (this image doesn't). Shambala108 ☎ 13:42, January 3, 2018 (UTC)

Post-fork

Reviving a discussion from 2018, so apologies, but found it interesting. This page covers regeneration as a whole, so might it be worth showcasing different regeneration moments/effects in an infobox gallery? (Those who know me will recognise I'm a big advocate for infobox galleries, as I believe they're a great tool for interactivity and also showing at a quick glance various designs/moments/etc. to new readers and viewers.) I don't think it'd be feasible to put every single regeneration scene in a gallery, but we could perhaps show off some of the notable ones? (In-universe has it ever been explained why some regenerations looked visually different on screen, or not? Curious about this.)

Worth also re-asking the question above too - when possible, is it worth keeping the infobox image as up to date as possible, showing the most recent 'traditional' regeneration (ie. 13-14, since 14-15 was a unique take on the process and given its own name/page)? × Fractal • 10:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Specific pages (and a category) for each Doctor's regeneration?

Just a thought. I notice that more and more pages are being made for specific 'events' in the world of Doctor Who.

There's a category for 'Dalek conflicts' and each event in the show gets its own page with a description of who was involved, the location, how the event unfolded, etc. There's a category for 'Conflicts involving the Doctor' which does the same.

I know we have a 'List of causes of regeneration' page, complete with table and brief overview, but I thought it might be worth each regeneration having its own page? The infobox would have an image showcasing the event, alongside a time/setting/location, who was involved, who witnessed the event, etc. The page could then briefly outline events leading up to the regeneration, what the cause was, the immediate aftermath.

My thinking is... you can read the Wiki page for 'Remembrance of the Daleks' for a complete story overview... but there's also a seperate page for the 'Imperial-Renegade Dalek Civil War' which culminates/happens within it. You can read the Wiki page for 'Genesis of the Daleks' for a complete story overview... but there's also a seperate page for the 'Genesis Incident' which is a specific event in it. 'Day of the Daleks' has its own page, but then there's also a more specific 'Time Paradox Incident' page to accompany it. So why not have pages detailing each regeneration, too?

We have a page for 'The End of Time', but why not a small but dedicated page detailing the regeneration specifically? The page would include information about the 'four knocks' prophecy, the Ood's warning about 'your song ending', then Ood Sigma's summoning, the events that lead to Wilfred ending up in the radiation booth, and the Doctor's sacrifice, plus the 'farewell tour' etc.

I just thought, if specific events within the world of the show can warrant their own page, maybe regeneration can be considered monumental enough to warrant detailed pages too? They could be called 'The First Doctor's Regeneration', for example, or more story specific 'The South Pole Cyberman Incident (Regeneration)'?

We already have a page for 'The Doctor's trial (The War Games)', and this could either be expanded to become a 'Regeneration' page, or simply accompany one. That specific Trial at the end of the Second Doctor's life is big enough to warrant its own page, so why not events such as 'The Third Doctor faces the Great One', or 'The Fourth Doctor's Pharos Incident', or 'The Fifth Doctor's Spectrox Incident', etc?

Anyway, sorry for rambling. Just a thought! Worth putting out there as an idea :) FractalDoctor ☎ 11:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Post-fork

If possible, I'd love to reignite this topic and get others' opinions on individual pages for specific regenerations, for reasons outlined above? :) × Fractal • 10:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The pages in this category page (I seem to be having trouble with linking it) seem to be all created roughly from March 2023 onwards, after your initial post, not sure if you're aware of them yet? - CodeAndGin | 🗨 | 13:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh! I wasn't aware of them. Thanks :) × Fractal • 13:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

T:CITE compliant citations

Okay, so I didn't want to jump into editing such a major article like this for fear of accidentally committing vandalism. On Forum:General Discussion of the Fork, @Fractal pointed out that the citations on this page are user-unfriendly. @Scrooge MacDuck confirmed that they are explicitly against policy.

I just forked the page into this sandbox to make some of the required edits (I say forked, I copied the source in, I don't really know what I'm doing with the whole Sandbox thing). With the exception of one citation - the one in the paragraph about sex changing in regenerations, I think I've done a decent job but would respectfully like someone to look at my work before I even consider changing the main article. - CodeAndGin | 🗨 | 03:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)