User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-43908-20150311013943/@comment-1827503-20151021015510

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-43908-20150311013943/@comment-1827503-20151021015510 We allowed an implied (non-)regeneration in the Delgado/Pratt/Beevers debate, and according to what Revan said above, The Ancestor Cell at least implies and possibly confirms that prose Romana regenerated directly from Romana II.

As for your first question, T:ROMANA obliges us to use Roman numerals for Romana when disambiguating, so the first two are "Romana I" and "Romana II" and both thirds are "Romana III" - though it may be confusing on articles that involve both of them.