User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1783865-20200302103744/@comment-45135034-20200330224903: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Bot: Automated import of articles)
 
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5))
 
Line 1: Line 1:
'''User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1783865-20200302103744/@comment-45135034-20200330224903'''
Oops, I'm sorry you're right, I totally missed that. Didn't mean anything by it, just slipped past me. I think you're right about the Morbius Doctors.
Oops, I'm sorry you're right, I totally missed that. Didn't mean anything by it, just slipped past me. I think you're right about the Morbius Doctors.


Line 7: Line 6:


Sorry again, I'll try better in future to take note of all edits/contributions made.
Sorry again, I'll try better in future to take note of all edits/contributions made.
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude>
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20200302103744-1783865/20200330224903-45135034]]</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 21:19, 27 April 2023

Oops, I'm sorry you're right, I totally missed that. Didn't mean anything by it, just slipped past me. I think you're right about the Morbius Doctors.

People up thread made a good case for having division between 1-8 & War-13. Not only does it keep both rows better balanced, but it cleanly separates Classic and New Who without having them be in seperate categories or anything. The problem with having the rows represent regeneration cycles is that it seems the show might be moving past the concept of regeneration cycles for the Doctor going forward. Although we won't really know if that's the case for a long time, if we ever do.

As for the Relic Doctor, all I'll say is that his existence contradicting other stories is not in and of itself a reason for exclusion. Under T:NPOV, Alien Bodies is considered a valid source as any other. So that I think warrants the Relic Doctor's inclusion in the second category.

Sorry again, I'll try better in future to take note of all edits/contributions made.