Talk:Romana III

f==Illustration idea== Since her description is based upon that of Louise Brooks, maybe we can use a photo of Brooks to illustrate the article? 23skidoo 02:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I put one in, but it was removed. I assume the reasoning was that it was not Louise Brooks "in character" as Romana, although obviously such a picture could never exist unless it is an officially (BBC or Big Finish, etc.) doctored picture putting Brooks' face into a Time Lord outfit, or something.--The Traveller 10:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The article had a 100-pixel-wide image of Louise Brooks attached to the bottom of the sidebar, with no caption.

The values for the Image tag were clearly wrong, but my attempts to fix it weren't entirely successful. The image is now a proper thumbnail (which actually makes it wider than 100 pixels, at least in the default theme), links to the full-sized picture, and has the intended caption "Louise Brooks". However, it still appears below the sidebar, rather than inline within the "Behind the Scenes" section. And I don't know how to fix that.

For reference, I just changed the tag from this: to this: --Falcotron 10:25, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * [Image:Louise Brooks.jpg|100px|right|Louise Brooks]
 * [Image:Louise Brooks.jpg|thumb|Louise Brooks]
 * Personally, I dont't think articles about characters who have never appeared in visual DW should have picturess attaqched to them. Just because we hear a voice of an actor doesn't mean that that's what the character looks like. These are in-universe articles, and in-universe, there is no image of the character. Removing pic.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 14:57, April 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * While I agree with CzechOut for the most part I think if the writers have described them in the book it should be ok maybe not a main pic in the info box but a picture with the caption that says something along the lines of "Based on the apperence of this person". GrimmShadows talk to me 03:33, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Trey?
While James Goss had stated that Trey is not the Romana III from the books, looks like Scott Handcock and Gary Russell are now maintaining that she is the third incarnation. And generally that's the impression one can get from "Intervention Earth". Looks like Goss might have meant that he didn't base his version on the books (although they are actually very similar). Given that, maybe it's best to merge the pages? JagoAndLitefoot ☎  10:39, February 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * My proposed merged version: User:JagoAndLitefoot/Romana_III JagoAndLitefoot ☎  10:57, February 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * Your version works very good, but if it's not explicitly stated in narrative that Trey is the third..? (I'm going to listen to Intervention Earth soon, BTW). HarveyWallbanger ☎  11:07, February 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * Have they actually stated in the novels that that Romana is the third in-narrative, by the way? Trey being the third is not stated outright in IE, I think (although I should probably relisten), but is heavily implied. We might get more of a definitive confirmation in "Enemy Lines". Anyway, it seems to me from the comments by the producers that she is definitely intended to be the Big Finish third incarnation, and Goss simply said that his version was not based on the one in the books (but they're still surprisingly compatible). JagoAndLitefoot ☎  11:10, February 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the name "Trey" itself is a big clue... JagoAndLitefoot ☎  12:55, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

JagoAndLitefoot, you can't put a "merge" tag on both pages. You have to pick one, and state what page you want it merged onto. I'm putting this message on both the Trey and Romana III talk pages since you're having this conversation in two different places. Shambala108 ☎  15:35, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is proceeding anew at the Panopticon, one way or another a course of action for these pages should be decided upon there soon. Please contribute to the discussion there if interested. &mdash; Rob T Firefly - &#916;&#8711; - 14:42, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

Re-spliting into "Trey" and "Romana (The Shadows of Avalon)"
This idea was discussused prevoiusly, although in reverse, back before the forums fell. The discussion began here, but then moved to a thread which we cannot view now. Hence, I feel it only fair to re-discuss this. Personally, I believe we should re-split this page into her Big Finish and BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures incarnations, as this would more accurately reflect the ambiguiy around whether or not they are the same. As per T:MERGE, if two concepts are ambigius as to whether they are the same, they should not be merged, but their possible connection should be explored on each of their pages, and potentially the BTS section as well (as part of the reason for them being different is a real-world one of later media not picking up on the "War in Heaven" and also this allows for the idea that the temporal abortion of Trey to be highlighted as a "possible way the WiH was aborted" in either the in-universe or BTS section, depending on available diegetic evidence. Cousin Ettolrhc ☎  13:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding to this - should've included it initially, but nevermind - this also helps readability because reading about strange WiH lore intertwined with Big Finish Gallifrey audios is definitely going to be confusing, or even off-putting, to Gallifrey fans. And of course, both pages would have a and the page Romana's third incarnation would probably be created to discuss the ambiguity, connections, and discontinuities, better. Cousin Ettolrhc ☎  13:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that Juliet Landau's incarnation and the BBC Books incarnation should be covered on separate pages. Actually, the prior discussion had nothing to do with this proposal, since Trey was our page for the Matrix projection of Juliet Landau's incarnation specifically. We concluded there, and I think we can all agree, that "Juliet Landau projection" and "Juliet Landau in the flesh" belong on the same page. Since Juliet Landau's incarnation was then explicitly unwritten from time, I suggest that we cover her on Trey, and discuss the BBC Books incarnation on Romana III, with a link to Trey in an "Other realities" section. – n8 (☎) 16:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * After reminding myself that everyone except me (because I'm insane) treats different possible incarnations with the same ordinality as alternative to each other, I fully agree with n8's solution. And I presume will be updated to say "1•2•3(Trey)•4", or would Trey fit in someway else? Cousin Ettolrhc  ☎  20:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * That would look good to me. – n8 (☎) 21:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Nice. So how many more people do we need affirmming this discussion? Or do we just need an admin? Cousin Ettolrhc ☎  23:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Alright, this seems sensible, and a straightforward interpretation of now-established T:MERGE policy. User:OncomingStorm12th has created two sandboxes for the new split pages, so this is easy to implement without further delay. will be edited accordingly. Because it would be confusing not to have a page at that title, and biased to deem either of the potential Romana IIIs the primary topic, Romana III will remain as a short The Doctor's ninth incarnation-style page. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 16:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Woah woah woah woah woah. Romana III (The Shadows of Avalon) is explicitly not the conclusion we'd come to here.

It's not "biased" to leave her undabbed, since Juliet Landau's version was explicitly unwritten from time in Enemy Lines – which you could even interpret as Big Finish undoing the discrepancy and clearing the way for the books' Romana III to take hold in the future. In contrast, Romana III isn't unwritten; in fact, we see her live to old age and regenerate into Romana IV in Tomb of Valdemar. Putting Landau on Trey, and putting the books Romana III on Romana III, is just accurately reflecting what the stories themselves tell us.

Also, as a point of order, it would be nice if relevant sandboxes were linked to on the talk page, as I hadn't seen them or I would have raised this point earlier 😛 I'll probably create a sandbox of how I think Romana III would look under Ettolrhc and my actual consesus, and I'll share it here when I do so. – n8 (☎) 01:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed; I simply went with what User:OncomingStorm12th had put together. It would be relatively simple to rename what is currently Romana III to Romana's third incarnation (this slightly wounds my inner Destiny-truther, but no moreso than "the Doctor's ninth incarnation" wounds my inner Morbius-truther, so whatever), and the current Romana III (The Shadows of Avalon) to Romana III, if people prefer that. I'm not sure I see why a new sandbox would be warranted, however; page names aside, what other changes would you make? The ==Other realities section is by no means nixed by the current ruling, you can and should feel free to make that edit in the main namespace as it is! Anything else? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 01:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay! Thanks for the speedy and considerate reply. You're right that there's no need for a Sandbox, I don't know what I was thinking. That's a good point about Destiny. I still favor Romana III but maybe it would be good to get input from other users. – n8 (☎) 04:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)