Toggle menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

The Panopticon/Confusing regenerations

< User:SOTO‎ | Forum Archive
Revision as of 22:25, 27 April 2023 by SV7 (talk | contribs) (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\5\2/\4-\3, -'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-(.*?)'''([\s\S]*) ?\{\{retitle\|///(.*?)\}\} +{{retitle|\2/\5}}\n'''User:\1/\2/@comment-\3'''\4))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

There is a problem when referring to the Doctor's regenerations. Because of the revelation of the War Doctor's regeneration and Ten's aborted regeneration counting, the way regenerations are now numbered is really confusing and inconsistent. Examples of this are on the Regeneration article. Sometimes Tenth regeneration refers to the Tenth to Eleventh Doctor's regeneration, and sometimes it refers to the Ninth Doctor's regeneration. It get's confusing and annoying. I suggest we label the Doctor's Regenerations to refer to the Doctor that is regenerating. For example the War Doctor's regeneration wouldn't be referred to as the ninth regeneration, but instead War's regeneration or the War Doctor's regeneration. The Eleventh Doctor's regeneration would be called Eleven's regeneration. Also we would call the Tenth Doctor's aborted regeneration the Metacrisis regeneration. We could still count it as using a regeneration of his cycle, it just wouldn't be numbered. This would make referring to the Doctor's regenerations a lot less confusing.

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.