Talk:Regeneration (Doctor Who)

Edits of 1 December 2006
Just to clarify a few things: as the article says, and this is stated in the "Brief History of Time (Travel)" cite, the idea that the First Doctor rejuvenates, i.e. becomes younger, was in Innes Lloyd's head, so this is not mere opinion. The way The Power of the Daleks uses "rejuvenation" and "renewal" is a very different concept, in context, than "regeneration" was used in The Planet of the Spiders on. In addition, the TARDIS aiding in the renewal is not ambiguous. The exact line of dialogue is: "Renewed? Have I? That's it, I've been renewed. It's part of the TARDIS. Without it I couldn't survive." --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that regeneration/renewal/rejuvenation is named differently at different points of the series's history does not mean these are different things (initially, there was only supposed to be one TARDIS; does this now mean that other Gallifreyan time-travel capsules are not TARDISes?). The website says that "Davis posited that, since the Doctor was an alien, he could die and come back to life in a new body; Lloyd expanded on this idea, suggesting that this “renewal” could be a regular ability of the Doctor's, to transform himself from an elderly man to a younger one." So it says he could die, then return in a younger form. This does not say that the younger and older Doctor are the same body. The site's use of 'transform' and 'younger one' suggest this. The site also shows that the two Doctors were envisaged as different, as you have noted in a recent edit: "Hartnell was cheered by the possibility of Troughton being his replacement, and also by the notion that the new Doctor would be characterised much differently from his own version." Besides, it obviously is a regeneration: Troughton looks nothing like a young William Hartnell. Jsteph 10:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, the line is ambiguous. If anything your extended quote more strongly suggests that 'it' refers to regeneration/renewal. Jsteph 10:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that what we now call regeneration only solidified into the concept we know it today with The Planet of the Spiders. This is the out-of-universe perspective, not the in-universe one. The way it was envisaged wasn't as a replacement, but as a renewal, a rejuvenation, and that was the way it was presented and taken by the viewing public. In-universe, of course, we can come up with any number of justifications we want to say it's the same concept (which, for fictional consistency, it has to be), but from a out-of-universe perspective its a whole other matter.
 * And as for the line, by any sensible rule of grammar, the "it" should refer to the last object mentioned, which is the TARDIS, not the renewal. In fact, referring to the TARDIS is more consistent with the in-universe explanation, if one considers the Zero Room. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to revert anything as I think it's enough to have my objections on this talk page: aside from a claim in Doctor Who Monthly, where are you getting this 'replacement' stuff from? There's no evidence for it on the page you cite - see above - (and 'renewal' is used in The Twin Dilemma too, clearly a synonym for regeneration). As for 'it', there is no rule of English that says that a pronoun must refer to the previous noun in the sentence. Consider: 'Bill phoned Fred. He was upset.' (Could be either). Or: "...it's been in the TARDIS ever since I built it..." Jsteph 05:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of terminology, and again I point out the difference between what was perceived at the time and post facto justifications (hence in-universe as opposed to out-of-universe perspectives). Of course it would be said that a renewal equals regeneration in The Twin Dilemma since this was when regeneration lore was more firmly fixed. However, at the time of The Tenth Planet, the "renewal" was not presented or perceived in the same as the way we understand "regeneration" to mean today. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're going to agree here. My interpretation is there's little or no evidence from the time that the first change was presented and perceived as something different from what went later. Jsteph 02:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The table at the bottom
I don't know where else to put this, so I'll put it here. Shouldn't the template for "television stories dealing with regeneration" also include Destiny Of The Daleks and Utopia? After all, it doesn't specify the Doctor's regeneration, but regeneration in general. Ed zeppelin 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Regeneration Optional
The Master's refusal may have brought up a slight continuity problem. The Seventh Doctor wasn't exactly 'alive' when he regenerated into the Eighth, so if regeneration is a conscious choice, how could the Seventh make it? Of course, easily explained away by saying the body automatically regenerates if the mind is unable to make the choice, just something of note to bring up in the article perhaps?
 * It could easily be explained as rather than regeneration being optional, not regenerating being an option, that is, the body automatically regenerates on being fatally damaged, but the Time Lord can consciously prevent this process if they want to. Much as Davison's Doctor held back his regeneration for a time in Caves of Androzani. MartinMcCann 11:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When you are conscious, you can choose to not breathe. Same deal.--Jeffro77 00:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well... Only for a time.Theplanetsaturn 01:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is inherent to the statement. For the time that you are conscious, you can choose not to breathe. If you do that for too long, you will become unconscious, and then you will begin breathing again (so long as there is no other impediment to your breathing other than by choice). Once you are unconscious, the statement is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 07:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

By the same token, "once you are [dead], the statement is irrelevant," i.e., when the Master died his refusal to regenerate should have stopped and he then regenerated from "true" death, as the 7th Doctor did, if that is indeed possible at all. I submit that this part of the 1996 telefilm is the "slight continuity problem" here, as throughout the original (1963-1989) series, there was the repeated and very strong implication that if the Doctor---and by logical extension, any Time Lord---is killed, he or she is dead. Indeed, the implication was applied to the Master (Delgado version, and he was said to have been a classmate of the Doctor's, and therefore supposed to be about the same age, no thought in anybody's mind until well after the actor's death that the character was already in his 13th and final life then) and Romana on occasions. So what the Master does--or refuses to do--in "Last of the Time Lords" is consistent with almost all that came before. Ted Watson 21:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Update—In the recently premiered "The End of Time Part 1", the Tenth Doctor flatly states that if a Time Lord dies before he regenerates, then he's dead. This is definitely incompatible with the Eighth Doctor's "...dead too long this time," statement (and appearances) in the 1996 film. It also requires the conplicated explanation for the Master surviving his "Last of the Time Lords" death (even if his body had not been cremated afterwards), as seen in the aforementioned recent episode. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fatal Death
What about the (non-canonical) regenerations in "The Curse of Fatal Death"?--Jeffro77 10:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What about them? I'm not sure what kind of answer you're after here. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 11:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Regen1.gif
Image:Regen1.gif 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Regeneration control
Regarding this bit:

"The change of appearance forced on the Second Doctor at the end of The War Games suggests that some degree of control over the process can be asserted. The Rani's comment in The Mark of the Rani about being able to choose her forms suggests that the ability may be exclusive to female Time Lords. Doctor Who television writer and script editor Eric Saward suggests in his 1985 novelisation of The Twin Dilemma (1984) that Time Lords can control the appearance of their next body if they trigger the regeneration voluntarily, but not if the regeneration is caused by death or injury."


 * Hmmm. That does explain how the Sisterhood of Karn's new exlixir helps the Eigth Doctor decide what he wants to become in "The Night of the Doctor. The potion triggers a voluntary change, which can be shaped, and the potion helps matters along.Ooznoz (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Ooznoz

While I'm not going to much go into how much of this may or may not be OR (Eric Saward is cited, but the other comments seem speculative, based on inferences from episodes and using some weasel words like 'suggests that' and so on), I wanted to point something out...

In the end of Utopia, right before The Master regenerated, he said something about how the Doctor was young and handsome or something to the effect, and how he could also be young and handsome, whereupon he proceeded to become a younger-looking Master than his previous incarnation and, arguably, younger-looking than all his previous incarnations.

Now, saying this MAY have just been co-incidence. He might have been expressing hope or the assumption that with how old his current incarnation was, younger-looking was pretty likely. However, it certainly *seemed* like he decided to do the younger thing quite deliberately. That would contraindicate the idea that controlled regeneration is limited to females, and indicate that it's probably available to all time lords, but the degree of control is limited. Maybe they teach this in time-lord school, and since Romona got a trouple perfect score on her finals (as opposed to the doctor's barely passing 51%), she's so good at it she can use regeneration energy to change the look before the energy 'settles' (the same latent energy sticking around that let David Tennant grow a new hand). The Master and the Rani might just both be better than the Doctor at this, or perhaps he's limited because of his human mitochondrial DNA. 65.87.20.98 (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Master's Regenerations?
I can't remember where I read it or heard it (I've only seen bits and pieces of the last three episodes of the new series' 3rd season so it may be in there), but wasn't there something about Time Lords getting sort of "topped up" on regenerations due to them all being recalled for the Time War? That is to say, wouldn't the Master have been given a new cycle of regenerations since he, too, was recalled for the war? Then again, wouldn't this also mean that the Doctor would get another nine regenerations? (Then again, didn't his eighth regeneration occur as a result of the Time War? That would mean he would have received another seven instead...unless they gave a full set of regenerations.)98.161.52.33 (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's already in the article. Ged UK (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly is, and I believe it might be misleading as it is now. The article says: "In "The Sound of Drums" (2007) the Master is revealed to have been granted a new body by the Time Lords during the Time War with at least one new regeneration." Should that be at least two? If I understand it right, it's saying that he was given the new body of...er, the older guy from the end of the universe, which then had the ability to regenerate once, into the guy that went by Saxon. But that guy had another regeneration, which he chose not to use, for a total of two. Correct? --SoloGecko (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, shouldn't it also be brought up that when the Seventh Doctor regenerated into the Eighth Doctor, he was dead for some time? While the Master was burned (although we didn't actually see the process by which the Doctor sets up the platform and wraps the body), what's to say that we don't know how much technology has expanded on Gallifrey? For all we know, the body we saw burned wasn't actually the Master. Stenir (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

On the topic of this, I've noted that the mentions of The Five Doctors he's 'offered' a new lifecycle. The article gives the impression that it's a reward - it wasn't "There's an alternative: Forced regeneration, a new lifecycle" I believe was the quote (probably not exact, but close, I think). It was more of a threat (and an option to a full pardon, not both), at least that's how it appeared in the episode. Worth updating the article to show this? It does sound misleading, otherwise. Thom Dalladay (Talk) 16:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regeneration was indeed offered as an incentive or reward. It was an "alternative to [his] renegade existence", not an alternative to a pardon. The word "forced" was neither used nor implied.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, fair enough. I do apologise.  Thom Dalladay  (Talk) 15:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Jenny
Zythe you shouldn't have removed the Jenny subsection. It would be original research to declare either way at this point that she did or did not regenerate. Until we have information from the production team or the program we cannot say either way. The paragraph that was there was open enough to interpretation not to be OR. --GracieLizzie (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Regeneration in the series has always been used to describe Time Lords' change of appearence. The various times when they've recovered from serious injury with such a change (the 3rd Doctor in "Planet of the Daleks" for example) have never been described as such.  MartinMcCann (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While I was last to edit the section, I agree. Granted she's a Time Lord (at least biologically), but she was returned to life in the same personality and appearance; it seems we might as well have Jack on here if we're to include her. While not a Time Lord, he was brought back by the aid of the TARDIS, like Jenny fulfilling a couple conditions for regeneration but passing on others. --Kiarboz (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thing is, this a point of contention in the fandom at the moment (something I sadly can't cite, because the evidence is all on fora) so I think it might be best to include Jenny's "return to life" at least for the time being. Avoiding it is just inviting more OR riddled sections to be added by others. --GracieLizzie (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose the problem is that even putting it in here in the first place is OR. On the other hand, if one can find a decent source calling it a regeneration, we could at least include it and perhaps observe something to the effect of "While some sources have called it a regeneration, its exact nature remains unexplained on screen." --Kiarboz (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously what the fans think doesn't determine whether it was a regeneration or not. There are certain affinities between the revival of Jenny and the regeneration of Time Lords, and at the moment there isn't any more to say. --Jenny 20:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Main Article?
The section on the Doctor (Doctor Who)}Doctor's regenerations here links to his main wiki page as the main article on that section, but that section itself links back to here as the main article. Can we decide which one is going to be the primary on that subject and link to the other page in an "additional reading" manner? Personally I say that this one be listed as the main article, and have it link to the other one for additional reading. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The Doctor's Regenerations
The climax of Season 4 has confused me alot on this topic. Does the Doctor's "incomplete" regeneteration count towards his total of twelve? Eladkse61 (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no official word about that, at least not one that is conclusive. The only thing that's been said is that it's up to future writers/producers to answer that question. DonQuixote (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm very glad to discover this thread, as I've been wondering the same thing as Eladkse61. If the creative team wants to maintain the audience's willing suspension of disbelief, they need to be logical, and it would be difficult to justify the Doctor not using one available usage of the process there. On the other hand, as pointed out in this board's thread "The Master's Regenerations?," the Doctor might very well have been granted additional regenerations on the occasion of the Time War as the Master had been, an easy out for them. Before this degenerates any further into a chat-room style post, let me ask: why is this definitely regeneration-related incident not mentioned in the article (I've been unable to find it, anyway)?  --Ted Watson (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's in there - top of the second paragraph of "The Doctor's Regenerations". Captain Seafort (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So it is, and I remember looking at that photo of the levitating Fifth Doctor next to it, too. Rather blind of me. Thanks. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose when the transition to Tennant's successor is actually transmitted, we'll have to change the line in the intro from "...nine or ten times...." to "...ten or eleven...." --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've improved the wording in the lead. It needed to be slightly more specific, or it just read as if the author was unsure of the correct number. U-Mos (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the point, U-Mos. As this thread clearly demonstrates, we are unsure. Did the Tenth Doctor's deflecting most of the regeneration energy into his previously amputated (and regenerated because the transformation from his Ninth form had not yet fully stabilized) hand, causing it to grow into a full body/clone of the Tenth, use up that entire regeneration process, leaving him with only his eleventh and twelfth usages (what would have been his 12th & 13th personas)? We just do not know. We are unsure. --Tbrittreid (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, that whole argument needs to be scaled down because a) it's totally speculative and b) from a logical out-of-universe point of view, why the hell would the show's makers want to use up an extra regeneration before time (and in-universe, surely his body didn't change so he hasn't used up a regenration? But I digress, I quite agree we can't go either way within the article as that would be OR). What I have changed the lead to still clearly displays that it could be said that ten regenerations have been used. In fact, it's even more clear than before. What I meant was, as it stood before it just seemed as if the author was writing it completely from memory and couldn't be bothered to count up, rather than there actually being a controversial "regenereration" within the show. There is no drawback to the change I made, and no better element within the old version. U-Mos (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I took another look at the previous version, and you're right about how it looked. A different sense of "unsure" than the way I took it, my apologies. That aside, this is the intro which should not be too complex. How about instead of, "The Doctor...has undergone this process nine times over the course of the series' run (or ten....)," we say, "The Doctor has used the process nine times over the course of the series' run to change his appearance and personality (thereby allowing another actor to take over the role)" (or "a new actor," "a different actor" or some other phrasing to that effect which you might want to suggest; I'm open)? This eliminates any need to mention the "aborted" incident entirely. After all, a change of actor was the reason the concept was created in the first place, and is therefore a fundamental aspect of it, not inappropriate to the intro; we don't want to get too in-universe, do we?. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that goes a bit convoluted down another road, and a brief mention of the Journey's End regeneration is perfectly acceptable and useful in the lead. However, having said that I won't object if you choose to make this change, after all it is technically correct. U-Mos (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See what you think of the version I've put in. I think Tbrittreid had a good start on the idea, and I've tried to tweak it to make the statement out-of-universe by positioning it as a creative element. It also allows us to avoid the Tennant "regeneration or not" issue altogether. Thoughts? --Ckatz chat spy  23:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Last words
The Doctor's last words section seems a bit vague. Not all of them immediately precede a regeneration, and are therefore out of the article's scope. If there is any other source for the 2nd and 8th Doctors' last words before actual regeneration (i.e. in other media, with a note of possible non-canonicity as required), that would be relevant at least, and therefore preferable. That the 9th Doctor's is responding to Rose's question part way through should also be indicated as the current presentation may seem odd to someone who hasn't seen the episode. It would also be less repetitive to present it as a table with columns for Doctor, Episode, and Quote.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a comment, I think that they are out of the article's scope (and a little too fancrufty). If we are to have them, they should probably be moved to their relative Doctor articles. DonQuixote (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The lines are of passing interest, but minimal importance. I won't complain if they're removed.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I echo Jeffro77's sentiments. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Circumstances of regeneration effect character?
Tricky subject this, considering it has only been hinted at in the lightest of ways. But in the new series, it seems that the circumstances surrounding the Doctor's regeneration help to shape his character. Look at "Journey's End", where the Doctor tells Rose that the other Doctor was born out of war and hatred, and needed her to fix him like she had for the Ninth Doctor, born in similar circumstances. This also ever so slightly implies the Tenth Doctor's character was shaped by Rose, being born out of sacrifice for her. And then there's the Eleventh, who was alone until encountering young Amelia, giving him distinct fondness and affinity for children and childish wonder, as well as the fairy tale style. "You never want to grow up" etc. Clearly some of that is OR, but is it all? Is there anything in these suggestions that is subjective enough to be included in the article? U-Mos (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the only thing that we can definitely say without OR is that the Tenth Doctor's accent was influenced by Rose as this was stated by Davies. This supports the above, but not explicitly.

SJA: Death of the Doctor
In the Sarah Jane Adventures episode Death of the Doctor, the Eleventh Doctor answers Clyde's question of "Can you change color? Are you always White?" with "No. I can be anything." (possibly "I can be any.") 71.226.59.203 (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Complications of John Hurt
Ok guys, who is going to edit this article to remove the regeneration count, as the inclusion of John Hurt as an incarnation of the Doctor means that the upcoming regeneration is the 12th (and supposedly final) regeneration. 208.250.96.20 (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No it does not. It's your speculation that it does. No explicit information has been released about how John Hurt's Doctor will affect the numbering. DonQuixote (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The addition of information from the mini-episode "Night of the Doctor," namely the regeneration of 8 to the War Doctor, would probably be a good idea, specifically under the transitions section.

We don't need all of these regeneration scenes
Most of them can be removed.

However, the ones that are kept should be videos that show enough of the "before" and "after," and the text should make enough commentary about the "before" and "after" to justify using a video rather than a still. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  22:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Could you posibly add the fi...
Could you posibly add the final words of each Doctor? Any thoughts? 2601:7:D00:663:D157:F735:8077:774F posted this comment on 25 November 2013 (view all feedback).

CAN DO!!!

First Doctor DOCTOR: I must get back to the TARDIS immediately! POLLY: Alright, Doctor. DOCTOR: Yes...  I must go now. BEN: Aren't we going  to go back to say good-bye or anything? DOCTOR: No! No, I must go at once. (Polly offers a helping hand, but the Doctor refuses it, brushing quickly past. Ben holds out his scarf.) BEN: Oh well, you better have this. We don't want you catching your death of cold. DOCTOR: Ah, yes! Thank you. It's good. Keep warm.

Second Doctor DOCTOR: What's hap, what's happened? TIME LORD: The time has come for you to change your appearance, Doctor, and begin your exile. DOCTOR: Is this some sort of joke? No, I refuse to be treated in. What are you doing? (The Doctor's face disappears.) DOCTOR: No! Stop, you're making me giddy! No, you can't do this to me! No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no!

Third Doctor (The Doctor steps out of the Tardis and falls onto the floor. The Brigadier puts a cushion under his head.) SARAH: Oh! Oh, Doctor, why did you have to go back? DOCTOR: I had to face my fear, Sarah. I had to face my fear. That was more important than just going on living. SARAH: Please, don't die. DOCTOR: A tear, Sarah Jane? No, don't cry. While there's life there's SARAH: No. (She closes the Doctor's eyes. There is a faint buzzing sound, then K'Anpo-Cho-Je appears, sitting cross-legged in midair.)

Fourth Doctor "DOCTOR: It's the end. But the moment has been prepared for."

Fifth Doctor DOCTOR: Too late, Peri. Going soon. Time to say goodbye. PERI: Don't give up. You can't leave me now! DOCTOR: I might regenerate. I don't know. (She lays his head down on the floor.) DOCTOR: Feels different this time.

Sixth Doctor DOCTOR: Oh. Carrot juice? Carrot juice, carrot juice, carrot juice.

Seventh Doctor DOCTOR: No, I'm not human. I'm not human. (He flails around, pulling down Grace's mask.) CURTIS: It's okay, I've got it. (Curtis puts the mask back in place.) GRACE: Try not to speak, Mister Smith. We've already taken out all the bullets, and now we're going to listen to your heart, find out why it's so wild, and then I'm going to fix it. You'll be fine. Okay, he's under. (The Doctor sits up.) DOCTOR: Timing malfunction. The Master, he's out there. He's out there. (They push him back down and try to get him unconscious again.) GRACE: Scalpel. DOCTOR: I've got to stop him. (The Doctor finally passes out.)

Eighth Doctor DOCTOR: Will it hurt? OHILA: Yes. DOCTOR: Good. (The DOCTOR holds the goblet in front of him with both hands.) DOCTOR: Charley, C’rizz, Lucie, Tamsin, Molly…friends, companions I've known, I salute you. And Cass... I apologize. Physician, heal thyself.

Ninth Doctor DOCTOR: I absorbed all the energy of the Time Vortex, and no one's meant to do that. Every cell in my body's dying. ROSE: Can't you do something? DOCTOR: Yeah, I'm doing it now. Time Lords have this little trick, it's sort of a way of cheating death. Except it means I'm going to change, and I'm not going to see you again. Not like this. Not with this daft old face. And before I go... ROSE: Don't say that. DOCTOR: Rose, before I go, I just want to tell you, you were fantastic. Absolutely fantastic. And do you know what? So was I.

Tenth Doctor

DOCTOR: I don't want to go. 78.149.241.71 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

In Defense of the Artist (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

A new regeneration or a new regeneration cycle?
New edits seem to claim that the Doctor was not just given one new regeneration, but rather a whole new regeneration cycle. Is there any evidence to support this? I'm adding a citation needed until this is answered. It seems to me that we can't tell from the episode. In Defense of the Artist (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In the TARDIS, the Doctor says "a whole new regeneration cycle" (~57 min). DonQuixote (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

River Song
Shouldn't it read it read "a side effect of being conceived while traveling through the time vortex" rather than simply "in a TARDIS"?75.81.54.1 (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Two Hearts
The meta-crisis clone had a single heart, unlike the Doctor. It was established in that serial that regeneration requires two hearts. I don't recall off-hand if Jenny had two hearts or not, which may be part of the reason why her revival was questioned. --Joe Sewell (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"Canon Material"
I have removed this sentence from just after the reference to the Second Doctor's statement about the TARDIS: "Canon material later indicates that the Doctor's TARDIS has a healing factor that could help him achieve regeneration, which justifies this statement." First of all this is unsourced, and second, "canon" as applied here is a fan-derived concept (seemingly very common among some Doctor Who fans) referring to books, comics, magazines and indeed anything related to the TV series--which has no direct relevance to the series' own narrative or concepts since it is beyond the control of the producers of any given day. Among Star Wars fans this would be called the "expanded universe". If you want to add this to the article you have to source it properly and clearly and not confuse anyone by calling it "canon" (which for non-"canon" steeped fans, means "authentic" or "accepted as true").ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Sixth Doctor (Colin Baker): Unspecified injuries when the Rani attacks the TARDIS at the start of Time and the Rani.[note 5]
Radiation Big Finish is canon duh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.238.49 (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no canon. There are several versions in various media, including the above from the show, and all are mentioned in their appropriate places in real world prose. DonQuixote (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

John Simm to Michelle Gomez
Was it ever stated that the Master actually regenerated into the form of Missy? If there is no mention of the Master changing sex through regeneration, we can't be sure that there was a regeneration. The Master could have just taken over a female body.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 14:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Romana End of the Key to Time series
At the end of the Key to Time series, Romana goes through a regeneration... why is not explained, she isn't injured or old. As part of it, she comes out looking like the princess that was the final piece of the Key to Time... showing normal Time Lords can choose what they look like. (The reason for this being the new actress played the princess.) When the Doctor to remarks to not look like the princess, she walks in and out like she is window shopping showing different forms including alien forms. Finally she comes out clothed like the 4th Doctor... who remarks that it is what is inside that matters most... and she reveals she is the princess from her first regeneration. This shows that normal Time Lords can be aliens and look like what ever they want... it has long been established that the Doctor is not normal with his regenerations and has no control, even having issues with it. 4th Doctor tot he 5th Doctor has a "Watcher" that is following them and when the regeneration occurs, he "steps into the Doctor's body" and the 5th Doctor is left there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoreboy01 (talk • contribs)
 * There's literally a section called Romana's regeneration. DonQuixote (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

River's Augmented Lifespan
In "The Husbands of River Song" River mentions she has an "augmented lifespan" which suggests she went through a process similar to Liz 10 from "The Beast Below" who had expanded her life far beyond a typical human life. However, in the article, section 3.4 |"River Song's regenerations" it's stated that she has an extended lifespan due to being part Time Lord? Is there a source that confirms this or is this just a misinterpretation of what River meant by "augmented lifespan" in Husbands? If there's no source for this information I suggest that it be removed or at least labelled 'citation needed', though I thought I'd see what others thought before making such a change myself. Landfish7 (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The First Doctor's regeneration
I feel we should include a reference to the First Doctor intentionally delaying his regeneration after defeating the Cybermen in the Tenth planet. "Twice upon a Time" is as canonical as "the Tenth Planet", and if the Doctor delaying his regeneration isn't relevant, then surely the Twelfth Doctor doing the same, also shouldn't be included, as the only reason for the 12th's Regeneration was the Electrocution from the finalé of series 10. Ph 1980 (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Also - is it right now that the description of First Doctor's regeneration states that he was renewed by the TARDIS. It has always been a point of some debate amongst Whovians whether the renewal of the 1st Doctor was the same as the regenerations of the Doctor from the Third onwards. The 2013 Anniversary special seemed to place it as the same thing. 2017's "Twice Upon a Time" now removes any debate, as the whole plot explicitly referred to the First Doctor preparing to regenerate. Is the "renewal" now irrelevant?Ph 1980 (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Regeneration (Doctor Who)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Regeneration (Doctor Who)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "507joke": From The Doctor (Doctor Who):  From Doctor Who:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The Doctor's regenerations
≠ I cannot see the purpose of the following line in the section "Regenerations depicted in the series" "The First, War and Eleventh Doctors bodies all died from old age whereas all other incarnations were killed."

Firstly. the whole section goes onto explain, in detail, the circumstances surrounding each regeneration scene. This line also makes some assumptions and doesn't describe the in-universe concept of regeneration as has been discussed in the rest of the article. There is no categoric statement that the First or War Doctors "died of old age" - There was no in-universe indication of the Doctor aging excessively until he faced the energy draining effects in "The Tenth Planet", likewise the War Doctor - he may have said "wearing a bit thin" - but the regeneration on the culmination of the Time War storyline could simply have been a metaphor for there being no longer a need for a warrior. It seems unneccessary to have this blunt statement to start the section, when the detail follows on and it's accuracy is questionable.

Furthermore - I am uncomfortable with the use of "died" and "killed" - this article on the whole expresses the device of regeneration in the series as a means to avoid death. On none of the occasions listed did the character "die" or "be killed", as the character regenerated.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, and I am conscious that this still needs to be written from an out of universe point of view - but it does strike me, that while this section may benefit from an introductory line, the line, as written is overly simplistic and misleading.

What does everyone think?

Ph 1980 (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Pre-Hartnell regens
Maybe the regenerations shown in The Timeless Children should technically be listed as the first, second, third, etc. as they happened canonically before the ‘1st’ Doctor DoctorWhoEditor2 (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipeida is written from a real world perspective. The regenerations don't have to be retconned in the article every time they're retconned in the programme. Listing them according to real world chronology is fine. DonQuixote (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Small Changes Could Be Made in the "Developing the concept" & "Recognition of the regenerated" Sections
"Developing the concept"

I don't think "The Timeless Children" should be set out as The Timeless Children in italic font without the quotation marks. I think it should be set out as "The Timeless Children" like the other New Who episodes.

"Recognition of the regenerated"

I think "Spyfall, Part 1" should be changed to "Spyfall, Part One" as the episode's intro shows the number "1" is in word form and not numerical form.

--Euanperrin17 (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)