Should Romana's incarnations be called Romana I, Romana II and Romana III as they are called now, or First Romana, Second Romana, Third Romana.
I'm in favour of keeping it as it is (Romana I etc), as this is how she is described in various reference texts and DWM. --Tangerineduel 12:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think it should stay as it is - after all, we don't really know which regenerations they were.
The Doctor is under First Doctor so these articles should be placed under First Romana etc. Skittles the hog 21:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Tangerineduel. I'm all for consistency, but it seems to me that the fandom's already decided: the Doctors are referred to as "the First/Second/Third/etc. Doctor", the Masters are referred to as "the Ainsley/Delgado/Simm/etc. Master", and the Romanas are referred to as "Romana I/II/etc." Trying to change these conventions by fiat, after 45 years, is a bit of an uphill battle. Nightsky 21:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It's much more simple than that. Romana's name is a proper noun, unlike most timelord name we know of which are titles. So whilst you could have the fouth Doctor or second Rani or eigthieth Master, you can't have the first Romana. Just as you can have the first Queen of England, but the first Elizibeth would sound odd. Taccer 07 20:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)