User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-24894325-20160708122214/@comment-188432-20160720005532

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-24894325-20160708122214/@comment-188432-20160720005532 As far as I'm currently aware, we've never counted "dream versions" of characters as worthy of their own pages. There is no Adric (Time-Flight), for instance. Equally, there is no Fifth Doctor (Happy Deathday) to account for the video game version of the Fifth Doctor in that story. Nor is there a Liz Shaw (The Five Doctors). Incorporeal "copies" of characters typically don't qualify for their own pages, and there's nothing in The Anachronauts that would make me think this case is particularly "special".

Based on my experience of the audios, I don't really have a problem with "Sara II" getting her own page. I quite agree that she's distinct from the "real" Sara Kingdom. But, to comply with our local naming rules, "Sara Kingdom (Home Truths)" is probably the title we want to go with.

And I think you'd probably be stretching things to create yet a third article. Your "Sara III" is closely related to "Sara II" and would likely best be handled as a section on that Sara Kingdom (Home Truths) article. My understanding from hearing Guardian is that she's another step in the evolution of the "House" version of Sara. That said, we do admittedly have an article on the Tenth Doctor's hand, and one could make an argument that the situations are roughly analogous. Still, that body-enabled version of the House Sara hasn't appeared with the same sort of frequency as the Tenth Doctor's hand, and probably could be summed up neatly in a few sentences. So in this "close call" situation, I'd probably err on the side of keeping these closely related things on the same page.