User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1783865-20200302103744/@comment-28349479-20200331003510

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
< User:SOTO‎ | Forum Archive‎ | The Panopticon/@comment-1783865-20200302103744
Revision as of 21:17, 27 April 2023 by SV7 (talk | contribs) (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))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

I'd love to explain.

First off, there is no "unplaced section". There is an "Other selves & unplaced incarnations" section. As you can see in Thread:267362#64, this is reserved for incarnations of the Doctor who we know are linked via regeneration, and per The Timeless Children, of course the Timeless Child falls in this category.

In contrast, the "More ambiguous" section covers Doctors who are not clearly linked via regeneration: for instance, the Other was reincarnated into the Doctor, and the Watcher, Valeyard, and Meta-crisis are each best understood as "spin-offs".

The question of where The Doctor (The Brain of Morbius) belongs therefore comes down to, "How are the Morbius faces related to the Doctor?"

Because of Tardis:Neutral point of view, we must treat these contradictory accounts as equally true, meaning that the relationship of the faces to the Doctor is not clearly regeneration related and can only be accurately described as "More ambiguous". So yes, to pick the TV show's explanation over the novels' would naturally violate T:NPOV.