Talk:Romana (Doctor Who)

Guys

About the regeneration business - please state the story that was given as the source of information for the bit just removed. If it is some untelevised story or any medium other than the TV series and TV movie, then it should , in my firm view, be discounted.

Well, it's a well-established bit of fan speculation (based on [some rather large extrapolations from] the regen scene in Destiny and also the end of The War Games) but you were probably right to delete it. (Indeed, the fact that Romana's regeneration scene admits of such possibilities is one reason why a lot of people don't like it). --Bth

it's true that at the end of Troughton, the Time Lords (though I don't think named as such) offer him a choice of bodies, which he refuses, and then choose Pertwee for him. However, they say "your appearance has changed before, it can change again" -- always seemed to me to imply that regeneration is not something innate. Because the TL mythos wasn't established then, the whole Troughton regeneration is maybe up for retconning, if anyone really cares that much. -- Tarquin

Tarquin watch Episode 10 of The War Games again - they are definately identified as Time Lords - as for "your appearance has changed before, it can change again" - it is just another way of describing the regeneration process - and i hardly think that all Time Lord regenerations would be as random as the Doctor's - specially on Gallifrey itself.

whoa! steady on there! I may remember this sort of stuff (inaccurately, as you can see), but I don't actually have any of them on tape! The last episode of DW I watched was the final Sylvester McCoy one. Yes, "your appearance has changed before, it can change again" does describe regen, but it implies that on this occasion they are forcing it. That's if I remember the line correctly. -- Tarquin

If the Time Lords can chose the next incarnation's appearance when they force a regeneration they they may be able to do the same when its voluntary - but all the Doctor's regenerations (except for his second) have been where there has been no time for all that malarky - just survival.

In the 2005 Season 27, they've started a plot thread saying that "The War" (as yet undescribed in any detail) turned Gallifrey into a burned-out husk and that The Doctor is "the last Timelord". This doesn't seem to be the same thing as the novels' erasing them from history, because other alien characters remember that there were Timelords, implying that they weren't erased from history altogether. I would assume he's "the last Timelord" because being isolationist all the Timelords live on Gallifrey, and if you destroy Gallifrey you kill them all...but Romana wasn't on Gallifrey. She's in the parallel dimension E-space. Does this mean she survived or died? If she died, they'd have to explain how she got out of E-space and returned to Gallifrey. This is quite perplexing and should be addressed (of course, the Fall of Gallifrey in The War seems to be a major subplot starting with Season 27).

Something that we'll just have to wait and see. This level of speculation is really beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article. --khaosworks 22:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Too many links

Does this entry really need so many dead links? It seems like there's a link for every individual episode mentioned, but none of them are live. If there are other Doctor Who episodes that have separate entries then this is okay, but if not the dead links should be removed until someone creates them.

Lalla Ward info: relevant?

I removed these sentences from the article:

Ward, who in real life married and divorced her co-star Tom Baker, is now married to the scientist Richard Dawkins.

Ward herself has been very active in Doctor Who fandom.

I think these comments about the actor aren't relevant to an article on the character. —Josiah Rowe 00:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. A metacomment which I don't think is wholly appropriate for the article so I'm not going to add it, merely mention, is the interesting concidence between Romana's reasons for regenerating in the Gallifrey audios and the fact that Louise Brooks's (i.e. Romana III) most famous film is Pandora's Box, i.e. is this a sly way by Big Finish of trying to avert Romana III's creation and further put the BFAs and the EDAs into separate universes.

I'm not sure if we should also mention that Pandora first appeared in fan fiction. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know that. (This is what I get for skipping out on OG's forum!) Where exactly did she first appear? — Josiah Rowe 02:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, Pandora first appeared as the character Pengallia, in the fanzine Apocrypha #2 (1993), as the Silver Queen, the first Time Lady President who was deposed because she was tyrannical, tried to take over everything - the usual. She was created by Adrian Middle. Pengallia made her way into licensed spin-offs when she was mentioned in The Infiniity Doctors. The background for Imperiatrix Pandora is almost the same as Pengallia's except for the name change. Adrian's working on a new fanfic which postulates that Romana is Pengallia's reincarnation much as the Doctor is the Other's.

There's apparently also another Time Lady Pandora mentioned somewhere in the NAs, full name Pandorastrumnelliahanfloriana. Not sure where, or if she's connected, though. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know Adrian Middle (don't read much fanfic, except what gets published in those charity anthologies). Did Gary Russell transplant Pengallia into the Gallifrey series with his permission, or was it a "tip of the hat", or just theft plain & simple? —Josiah Rowe 05:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

That one I don't know. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

A bit of digging uncovered this, which helps to explain Pengallia/Pandora. Middle seems to be saying that the concept was in the zeitgeist (a bit like Neil Gaiman's attitude about Tim Hunter and Harry Potter, I suppose). —Josiah Rowe 06:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

As a bit of a note, Pandorastrumnelliahanfloriana is mentioned in Tragedy Day by Gareth Roberts. How do people feel about a Pandora entry in minor Doctor Who villains? Or should we just stick to televised villains in that one? Or do we have enough for a separate entry, given the conceptual history of the character? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind putting Pandora in the minor villains list. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Tamm's Departure

The page makes claims I've never really heard before about why Tamm left. I've always heard that she was never going to do more than one season[1], not this thing about her leaving because the role wasn't going the way she wanted. Can we cite that or remove it, please?CzechOut 06:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll check my general references when I get back home. If anyone wants to remove it in the interim go ahead. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Romana's regeneration and The Christmas Invasion

Despite user:khaosworks editing note in the history section, I'm still not so clear why this bit of current speculation is really so much more egregious than the speculation involved with the other two theories advanced in this section. I'm therefore reverting it and inviting discussion. Still, I'll reword to avoid the two words to which he specifically objects, even though they are used in exactly the same way in the first paragraph of the section.CzechOut 07:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that this seems to come from nowhere - the female Gallifreyans are different theory has been around for a long, long time. The other ones advanced both derive from written sources. On top of that, the regeneration of the Doctor's hand in The Christmas Invasion is not really comparable to Romana's body switching in Destiny of the Daleks - the Doctor doesn't grow a different hand, he grows the same one; nobody chopped Romana's body off, either. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's REALLY stretching things to suggest that "Mark of the Rani" is a better source than TCI, but if you want "some fans", here they are. In support of the idea.[2] [3]. Treating the idea seriously enough to debate it from several different viewpoints. [4] And it's peppered throughout the threads that generally discuss the episode (but are hundreds of posts long). I don't know what to tell you other than that the episode is the most current episode available as of today. It hasn't had time to accrue these "years" of debate that Rani has, but it's also almost certainly been viewed by more people since December 25, 2005, than Rani has since its release in the mid-80s. You can't just pretend that it doesn't speak to the point being made just because it's not old. The section deals with speculation, and this has just as much right to be there as either of the other two mouldy, next-to-no-one-outside-hardcore-fandom-knows-about-them chestnuts do. This is an obvious link between two of the most-watched serials in the show's history. It deserves to be mentioned, perhaps like this:

The Christmas Invasion sparked fan debate about Romana's regeneration once again in the winter of 2006. Some fans suggested that the Doctor's regrowth of a hand in the episode, along with the revelation of a heretofore unknown 15 hour window during which the regenerative process could be fine-tuned, at last explained Romana's regeneration in "Destiny of the Daleks". Others countered by saying that regrowing a limb was not on the same order of complexity as changing one's physical appearance as capriciously as Romana had done. Still others advanced the theory that the 15-hour regeneration cycle could have been more precisely controlled by Romana, as she was voluntarily changing her form in the confines of a TARDIS with an on-board Zero Room. No consensus has yet been reached, but it seems clear that the manner of Mary Tamm's real-life departure has had a lingering effect upon one of the cornerstones of Doctor Who's mythology.CzechOut 08:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I still think it isn't good enough - the OG forums spout off on all sorts of speculation all the time; it doesn't make them notable. That amount of speculative detail would rapidly devolve the article into fancruft, which some might accuse of it being already. Statements like "it seems clear" are also POV. I'd like to hear other thoughts on this. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've tried a much pared down version that hopefully keeps the cruftiness to a minimum. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that version is indeed much better, but I think you make a valid point with respect to cruft. Truth of the matter is that the whole damn section is pretty un-encyclopediac. The only reason I even brokered my initial edit was because it seemed unbalanced somehow to maintain thie "Rani" connection in the face of the new theory being rapidly advanced consequent to TCI. But, in truth, an even better edit is probably just to say 'Romana's tongue-in-cheek regeneration scene has been controversial in fandom since its airing. The controversy arises from the fact that the Doctor's own regenerations have usually been traumatic events over which he has little control. Romana's, by contrast, shows regeneration as a voluntary act more akin to shopping for clothes than recovering from a near-fatal accident. The two approaches to regeneration have never been addressed in detail by any subsequent televised adventure, leading to a variety of competing fan theories. It's when you get into the specifics of those fan theories that the article practically begs for a kind of "point/counterpoint" expansion.CzechOut 10:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that without any published source, we're best staying away from all the theories. If any reference books like The Discontinuity Guide present theories on Romana's regeneration, we could probably cite them, but fan theories that are merely discussed here and there (whether they're of long standing or no) probably aren't encyclopedic, unless they made their way into print or were referred to in one of the licensed spin-offs. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, The Discontinuity Guide opts for the "these are projections ala the Watcher and Cho-Je" theory. About Time 4 also mentions that, and in addition speculates that perhaps Romana simply has better control of her regenerations, possibly because she is of a later generation and the biological mechanisms have been refined. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm giving too much deference to print, but I'd say that we should mention and cite those two and leave the rest as "other theories" or something like that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Romana in "Dalek I Love You"?

Should we include the "Romana" (AKA Isabella) from the BBC Radio Play, Dalek I Love You among the incarnations of Romana? Orville Eastland 14:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ward as the main picture

Since when does Lalla Ward get to have her version of Romana as the page's picture of the character?? We should have a picture of the original Romana as the primary picture, either that or a picture of both of them. But I just don't see why Romana II is now in the character box. --Promus Kaa 07:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Ward did play the character for longer and more often. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 10:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Shes also the more famouse one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.155.83 (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC) 

Fair use rationale for Image:Romana (Shada).png

Image:Romana (Shada).png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Time Lady"?

I dont recal ever hearing the term "Time Lady" used in the tv show, as far as im aware "Time Lord" is a genderless title. Is there some evidence taht female's are "lady" and not "lord? if not, this shoudl be changed. 59.167.147.250 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If I can remember correctly, in "City of Death", an artist was drawing Romana and crumbles up the drawing when he sees her face. The Doctor then picks up the piece of paper and says how accurate it was for a portrait of a Time Lady. -- Darkclaw1256 20:45 , July 29 2008 (UTC)

I do know Mary Tamm has used that term numerous times to describe her character-67.40.121.83 (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• "BBC - Doctor Who - News - Key To Time DVD". www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2009-09-14. - if the BBC refers to the idea of a "Time Lady", although to my knowledge, Romana is the only one, then we have a reliable source. I think (as an aside) that the idea of the wife of a Time Lord would have created complications- after all, The Doctor is notoriously independent, and a separate idea of a female Time Lord, although not indefensible, again, would raise ideological conflicts that even Russell Davies has not yet dealt with- however, River Song seems to approach that idea. Rodhullandemu 23:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

within the series, Romana referred to herself as a "Time Lord," not a "Time Lady." 71.190.92.212 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Romana refers to herself as a Time Lady in creature of the Pit. she refers to herself as a Time Lord when discussing herself and the Doctor.Nbaka is a joke1 (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"Last of the Time Lords"?

'The BBC's official Doctor Who website continues to assert that the Doctor is the last of the Time Lords, and has "no details of any other survivors".'

What about the Master?

HexAmp (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Current status

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. McWomble (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Main article for incarnation

i suggest we have main articles for incarnation like the doctor has i suggest we do the same for the master —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.130.8.135 (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Tamm pregnancy rumor

The Key to Time Special Edition DVD release, which occurred in March 2009 in Region 1 and in 2007 in the UK, includes several interviews discussing the reasons for Mary Tamm leaving the series. Not a one makes any reference to pregnancy. Since this is the most current and most authoritative source, featuring both first party (Tamm herself) and third party references, I have removed references to pregnancy from this article per WP:BLP. 68.146.62.92 (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Added statement that this rumor is false, since there is a source where Tamm explicitly denies it.

Roadrunner (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Romana/Dona theory

I think the strange but possible thoery that donna is actually romanna {In a fogwatch sinerio} is worth mentioning here.

If Russell T. Davies hasn't made this plain, then it's not worth mentioning. Rodhullandemu

re or na?

In "The Ribos Operation", the second time she says her name (more carefully than the first) it sounds to me like "...dvoratnalundar". Am I alone, or is this a notorious controversy? —Tamfang (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• How it's written is what counts and they use "tre". In fact that's where the new Romana played by Juliet Landau gets her nickname from. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Where do "they" write it? —Tamfang (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Update needed...

'Big Finish has announced that Mary Tamm will reprise the role of Romana alongside Tom Baker for a second series of original audio dramas (the first series having featured Leela) set during the Key to Time era; the first of these are scheduled for release in late 2012-early 2013.' As Mary Tamm has just died, this seems unlikely. It should be removed unless anyone can show that these audio dramas are still going to be released as planned. Robofish (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's an accurate description of the announcement. We'll need more info before we can add anything else (see Wilfred Mott, more specifically the bit about Attfield). DonQuixote (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the section which was outdated Tamm recorded all seven stories before she died - this fact was well publicized at the time of her death so it not disputed. The first one has just been released with the others officially confirmed for release by Big Finish. An additional Romana 2 story set for release in 2014 has also been confirmed. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

easteregg my eye

Having now read WP:EASTEREGG, I don't agree that "[[Time Lord|Time Lady]]" qualifies. Where is the surprise? Are Time Ladies not a subset of the Time Lords race? —Tamfang (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

no need for needlessly gendered term Time Lady as it is not the 1970s anymore

"Time Lady" was created by DW fan (boys and men) in the same era as such terms "manageress", "woman driver" etc.. It is deprecated in 2023. As such, I have removed it from the Fourth Doctor article. AUSPOLLIE (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The relevant question, meseems, is: was the phrase used in the show? —Tamfang (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It was. Likely in the original era (I'd have to check) and definitely post 2005. "Dark Water" (40:22) and "The Witch's Familiar" (25:30) use it to specify the Master changing their gender. TardisTybort (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Stories that are written by people who grew up with the Tom Baker stories. Time Lady instead of Time Lord is needlessly gendered in 2023. AUSPOLLIE (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Nevertheless, how was she described by reliable sources? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)