User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1783865-20200302103744/@comment-1783865-20200302113055: 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-1783865-20200302113055'''
I've got another: Should the Docpic template include the various incarnations of the Timeless Child as well as the Morbius faces and Martin's Doctor, or should we stick to the First Doctor-onwards? And should "The Doctor's species"'s infobox include this template too, or should it contain a picture of the child and if so should that be made a template too to show the different incarnations seen?
I've got another: Should the Docpic template include the various incarnations of the Timeless Child as well as the Morbius faces and Martin's Doctor, or should we stick to the First Doctor-onwards? And should "The Doctor's species"'s infobox include this template too, or should it contain a picture of the child and if so should that be made a template too to show the different incarnations seen?
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude>
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20200302103744-1783865/20200302113055-1783865]]</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 21:16, 27 April 2023

I've got another: Should the Docpic template include the various incarnations of the Timeless Child as well as the Morbius faces and Martin's Doctor, or should we stick to the First Doctor-onwards? And should "The Doctor's species"'s infobox include this template too, or should it contain a picture of the child and if so should that be made a template too to show the different incarnations seen?