Talk:The Master (Doctor Who)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Masters article layout

could someone revise the layout to look more like the doctors? but with each known master with an end of life in between. eg ( 2nd life twelfth Master) Eric Roberts ¦End of life¦ (3rd life First Master) Derek Jacobi (second Master) John Simm etc you get the idea. so what do you guys think?

it gives Derek Jacobi and John Simm more of a 'set up' (better presentation) Dava4444 (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

BBC confirmed John Simm is back as master

Can someone with permission add source and quote this into the Wiki: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/news/latest/090728_news_02 http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/news/latest/090728_news_o4

In short, the links says that John Simm is back as the Master as well as his wife in Tennant's last 2009 specials and that he was part of trailer screened yesterday at the Doctor Who panel, so edit away...

Oh, and there's a lot more information on those links for other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.15.167 (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Appearances

couldnt the appearances be listed in cronological order starting with delgados first appearcne ect.

Chronology is tricky, because where do we fit Dust Breeding, etc.? -khaosworks 22:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I suggest having two separate lists: one for appearances in the series, in chronological order; and one for other appearances (audio plays, parodies, etc.), perhaps in publication order. --Paul A 07:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Interesting idea, but then how do we distinguish between actors without it look too unwieldy? Can you do a draft so we can get an idea of what it would look like? --khaosworks 09:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On reflection, I was really planning to leave the second list in "appearance order by actor". This is what I had in mind:

Appearances

in the series

• By Roger Delgado
  • Terror of the Autons
  • The Mind of Evil
  • The Claws of Axos
  • Colony in Space
  • The Dæmons
  • The Sea Devils
  • The Time Monster
  • Frontier in Space
• By Peter Pratt
  • The Deadly Assassin
• By Geoffrey Beevers
  • The Keeper of Traken
• By Anthony Ainley
  • The Keeper of Traken - briefly, at the end
  • Logopolis
  • Castrovalva
  • Time-Flight
  • The King's Demons
  • The Five Doctors
  • Planet of Fire
  • The Caves of Androzani - briefly during regeneration scene
  • The Mark of the Rani
  • The Trial of a Time Lord
  • Survival
• By Gordon Tipple
  • Doctor Who television movie - briefly in prologue
• By Eric Roberts
  • Doctor Who television movie

elsewhere

• By Geoffrey Beevers
  • Dust Breeding (audio drama)
  • Master (audio drama)
• By Mark Gatiss
  • Sympathy for the Devil (audio drama)
• By Derek Jacobi
  • Scream of the Shalka (audio drama)
• By Jonathan Pryce
  • Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death (Red Nose Day skit)

--Paul A 01:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is the 'Portrayed By' section on the table just for TV appearances or should it include people like Mark Gatiss and Derek Jacobi?

Yes, just the television appearances - the others are in the "Other Appearances" section. This is the same for other pages. --khaosworks 19:31, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

what about people like Richard Hurndall for the Doctor, are they left out?

Good point - I would say off-hand yes, as Hurndall was really playing Hartnell playing the First Doctor. --khaosworks 14:03, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Should we really be counting The Caves of Androzani as an appearance of the Master? I'm not incredibly bothered if it's left in, but appearing as a vision in the Doctor's mind seems a bit thin to me. PaulHammond 19:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

It really doesn't take anything from it - we do note that it's only briefly at the end, and Ainley actually showed up on set to record that bit, it's not a clip from a previous episode. --khaosworks 19:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

There should be some mention of the fact that a character called "The Master" first appeared in Patrick Troughton's 1968 story "The Mind Robber". Sklrwryr (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)sklrwryr

I concur. You only ever see the back of his head, but he is referred to numerous times as The Master. On that note, how does one go about referencing television in wikipedia? Seblopedia (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you do see his face quite a bit. (See image.) But you're probably right that the Master of the Land of Fiction should be mentioned here. And in order to cite a television episode, use {{cite episode}}; the Doctor Who WikiProject has written up citations for every Doctor Who episode/serial. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

DWM comic Master

Two points that we might want to add to the paragraph about the version of the Master seen in The Glorious Dead in DWM:

1. The new Master was seen in the background of a previous strip (although I can't remember which one) before his identity was revealed. He was in the guise of a street preacher prophesying doom.
2. This version of the Master was depicted as black-skinned. No Time Lord in the TV series was ever played by a black actor, although this almost certainly has more to do with BBC casting practices between 1965 and 1986 (the first and last castings of characters from the Doctor's planet) than with an intrisic racial quality of Gallifreyans.

I can't add the first because my DWM back issues are in storage right now, and I can't check them to see the comic strip Master's first appearance. I'm unsure about the best way to word the second in NPOV: I think it's noteworthy (for example, as a departure from the Eurocentric casting of the original TV series), but I think that going into too much detail would be off-topic for this article. Opinions? —Josiah Rowe 04:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[1] - apparently there was a black time lord in one of Cornell's novels. Interestingly Rassilon is portrayed by Don Warrington in some of the Big Finish audios. Tim! (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I knew about Warrington's Rassilon, but had forgotten about the Cornell contribution. Of course, there's no reason whatsoever why a Time Lord shouldn't be black. But back to this article: anyone have a succinct way of mentioning this in the "Glorious Dead" paragraph, without getting too derailed? —Josiah Rowe 19:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that touching on it briefly (but obviously, keep the focus on the Master) and just saying "although no Black Time Lords were ever seen in the original series...." Okay, I don't know where to go from there, but it's a start. Also, the TVM Master was the first Time Lord to speak with an American accent, so evidently he is pretty cool with diversity. As long as they obey him, one supposes :) Sean 19:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Right, I've given it a shot, and probably erred on the side of too much information. Improvements are welcome. (By the way, I'm never quite sure when to write "black" and when to write "Black" — some people are very particular that it's got to be capitalized whenever you're talking about people, others say that the capitalization is a political relic from the 1970s. The Wikipedia article Black (people) is inconsistent.) —Josiah Rowe 21:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually that's really good. It's got just enough info to keep it relevant. Perhaps we should talk about this over at Talk: Time Lord ? Sean 21:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

EDAs

Khaosworks' addition of the Master's (possible) presence in The Gallifrey Chronicles has reminded me, wasn't there an EDA in which the amnesiac Doctor talked to this version on a screen in the depths of the TARDIS? At the time, REG was still being touted as the "official" Ninth Doctor, so this was presumably intended as an intermediate point between being trapped in the Eye and being trapped in an android body that couldn't leave the TARDIS.

Unfortunately, I can't remember which novel it was. Daibhid C 21:29 18 Oct 2005

Khaosworks recently changed several EDA appearances from "cameo only" to "possible cameo only". While I don't disagree with the change, it should probably be pointed out that Lance Parkin has confirmed in the newly released Ahistory that he, at least, indended the appearance in The Gallifrey Chronicles to be the Master. (I also think I read somewhere that Lawrence Miles and/or Justin Richards confirming that the "Man with the Rosette" was indended to be the Master, but I can't confirm that.) Of course, this raises questions of authorial intent and how important it is in the interpretation of a text, but that's beyond our scope. :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Reconciling spin-off appearances

I know that it's beyond our purview here to try to make sense of the somewhat contradictory versions of the Master's post-Survival history. But I was wondering if it would be appropriate to provide links to efforts by prominent fans/fan sites to do that. I'm thinking specifically of Outpost Gallifrey's Canon-Keeper's Guide, Paul Clarke's Discontinuity Guide and Dominique Boies' attempt at drwhoguide.com. Would it be appropriate to provide these links, either in the "Other appearances" section or in "External links"? Or is the entire matter too crufty even to mention? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"line cut from Bullet Time"

Re: the reference to a line "cut from Bullet Time," - I don't know that "cut" is the right word since that implies it was in the first draft manuscript- actually it was just something that I thought about while writing that book, maybe typed it in, then changed my mind after about thirty second's thought as it wasn't worth the bother. So, that line in the article on the Master probably ought to come out.

David A McIntee 23:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Accent

"To date, he is the only Time Lord to speak with an American accent." Of course, Castellan Spandrell spoke with a Czech accent... is this notable? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps just, although the fact that he's inside Bruce at the time makes it less so. —Whouk (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

War Chief/Monk theories

I agree with Khaosworks' removal of the recent anon additions about the fan theories linking the Master to the Monk and/or the War Chief, but I do wonder if the use of the word "invalidate" in the footnote is a bit too strong. Although I personally don't see much value in the theories (I remember one fellow on OG who insisted on calling the War Chief the "Brayshaw Master"), if we say that the NAs invalidate the theories, aren't we coming down on the side of their canonicity? I'd have changed the note myself to something reflecting our usual "uncertain canonicity" line, but couldn't find a wording that seemed right. On the one hand, I don't feel like the theories need to be promoted here, but on the other we shouldn't look like we're making an editorial judgement in favor of the canonicity of the New Adventures. Thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I shall change one word. Voila. Fear my power. (Although Letterman is probably more powerful, since he does his changes with one letter) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I loved Letterman when I was a kid! And had no idea until I followed the link you provided that the voices of Letterman and Spellbinder were Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel! Gee, Wikipedia is educational. :D —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the joys of being raised by television. Learned so much from the Children's Television Workshop. Speaking of The Electric Company, there's a "Best of" DVD set out, in case you didn't know. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If it has Morgan Freeman as Vincent the Vegetable Vampire, I'm there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't guarantee that but I don't see how they could leave it out... and with that I bring finis to my half of the conversation. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Article title

I supose this has been tackled elsewhere, but should the title be "The Master". GraemeLeggett 12:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It used to be, but it was moved here by consensus some time ago (same with The Rani, The Meddling Monk, The Doctor). This is due to Wikipedia naming conventions. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hypnotic ability

Shouldn't passing mention be given somewhere to The Master's ability to hypnotise people? Perhaps with the reproduction of his recurrent line: "I am The Master and you will obey me."

JH 20:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Real name

In the 5 doctors, the 3rd Dr recognises The Master and calls him by his real name, "Jehoshaphat" I think. This detail might be worthy of addition to the Master page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.45.11.155 (talk • contribs) 17:37, December 27, 2006 (UTC)

He's not calling him by his name — "Jumping Jehosaphat" or "Jumping Jehoshaphat" is a 19th century oath, apparently American in origin. See here for details. Nowt to do with the Master's name. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Noxal surrender

My understanding is that Romana offered The Master to the Daleks as a noxal surrender -in other words, she surrendered him to the Daleks in place of the original malefactor. This explanation was given in the 2006 Annual. Shouldn't it be noted in the "Life after Death" section? I still wish we knew more about the charges that were brought against him at the trial... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.59.196.27 (talk • contribs) 01:24, February 21, 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a likely interpretation of the "Act of Master Restitution", as mentioned in the 2006 Annual, but the story doesn't go into details, so we can't either. Since the Annual is a non-television source, it's mentioned in the "other appearances" section. (Even though that bit was written by Russell T. Davies, there are some folks who say "if it's not on TV, it's not canon". To satisfy Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, we always segregate TV and non-TV sources in Doctor Who articles.)

Currently the mention of the "Act of Master Restitution" is under "Comic strips", which isn't exactly accurate. Given its provenance as written by the series' current producer, maybe we should put it in its own section. Actually, I think I'll do that — if people disagree, we can talk it over. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like pretty wild speculation extrapolated from a single throwaway line, and has no place anywhere near Wikipedia. Angmering 09:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Bilis Manger

I reverted the following addition:

Some fans believe the Torchwood character Bilis Manger is actually the Master due mostly to his time travel abilities and his foundness for a mysterious grandfather clock This theory was first mentioned in Doctor Who Magazine issue #379.

It's true that one "George from Luton" had a letter with this theory published in DWM 379 — actually, the letter as published merely notes a similarity. I think that the evidence is pretty weak ("I love humans, always seeing patterns in things that aren't there"), and a fan letter (even one published in DWM) is a pretty borderline source. But if the theory is widespread I'm willing to be convinced, or to go along with others if they think this is worth including. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

series 3

has anyone realised that the master is appearing in the dw series? apparently derek jacobi will regenerate into the master played by life on mars star john simm at the end of episode 11. the master is also quoted to be the legendary mr.saxon that was quoted in the news report at the end of smith and jones (doctor who) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.6.19.155 (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes... we know... I'm considering putting a reference to The Sun's article on this page but I;m still mulling it over.--Dr who1975 22:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it's worth mentioning in the article that, logically, Dr Lazarus can't regenerate into Mr Saxon, since Mr Saxon's campaign to be PM is already underway? Or is that speculation (but then, so's the whole thing)? Daibhid C 23:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. Not Dr Lazarus, the Professor. Point still stands, though. Daibhid C 19:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Maybe after he regenerates into John Simm, the Master travels back in time and begins his campaign. He'd have to think of a plan quite quickly though.

Anon

Hm. I'm a little surprised so many folks are assuming Mr. Saxon is The Master. Might he not also (for example) be the Valeyard? Well, we'll find out. Zahir13 16:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Master will be in the series finale, that's for sure. Michael Mad 15:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I should have gotten back to this sooner... even before Utopia aired I would've told you it doesn;t matter because time lords do things non linearly... the only point of contention is how the Doctor can exist on earth at the same time as a Time Lord version of the Master and not know it (and even if the writers don't bother to explain that it still won't matter).--Dr who1975 17:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Connection with Doctor Who

While many try to parrallel them as brothers, I think it would be far more plausable to assume that the Master is actually his son. No explination was given for Susan's parents (other than an offhand comment about her being partly human) so she might be decended from the Master, who originally looked younger than the Doctor at almost every encounter. If the Master's mother were human, it would explain his more human desires for power instead of the Gallifreyan tendency to be neutral. -NemFX

While that may be seen as one explanation, it doesn't really follow, if, as the article states, the Master said "Believe it or not we were at the academy together". Assuming Time Lord "education" would follow in a similar way as real life education, a father and son being there at the same time would seem odd. Also, surely appearance of age of a Time Lord is irrelevant, as a regeneration could make them seem old or young. --86.130.29.170 12:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

There was once (circa 1984) a letter in Doctor Who Magazine referring to William Hartnell's plans for a "Son of Doctor Who" featuring an anti-hero, and to the Master's final line "Won't you show mercy to your own..." in Planet of Fire. That letter speculated the two Time Lords were brothers, and it's possible that this caught the imagination of many including later authors. The Sound of Drums confirmed them as contemporaries at the Academy (a narrative similar to that in Barry Letts' novelisation of The Daemons), and as of last night it is almost explicit that there is no kinship relation, fraternal or parental, despite some possible misdirection in Smith and Jones. --87.112.26.139 11:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah unless RTD is deliberately trying to make it so their connection won't be revealed until the very last second. Anyway, I'd just let it go, no relationships really to be found here.--74.134.239.15 02:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and also unlikely unless the Master burned through his regenerations while the Doctor stayed with one for over 700 years. The Master had already completed his 12th regeneration by the time of "The Deadly Assassin", so the only way this would make sense is if someone said that he used up many of his regenerations keeping himself alive after getting in trouble from so many of his evil schemes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.250.105 (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Brothers?

Has there been any evidence that the Doctor and Master were brothers? He could have been joking, but the Doctor mentions, in Smith and Jones that he "had a brother once". Could he be talking about the Master there, especially given the speculation over the character's return in S3? Kelvingreen 21:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There's been no evidence yet, no. There's been speculation in the past, but nothing that outwardly states that they're brothers - a lot of confusion comes from Pertwee incorrectly remembering the proposed story that ended up being replaced by Planet of the Spiders when Delgado died. He remembered it as the Master being the Doctor's brother, but it was actually intended for the Master to be an alternate, dark version of the Doctor himself. Much like the Valeyard, I assume. --Ryttu3k 05:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. I wonder what the Doctor's reference to a brother refers to? Kelvingreen 10:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a character in some of the Virgin New Adventures books and the Bernice Summerfield audios named Irving Braxiatel (at least, that's the name he's using) who refers to himself as the Doctor's brother. Since he's a Time Lord, he'd undoubtably be dead now - it's possible that the brother the Doctor referred to was Irving. It's certainly been implied before! --Ryttu3k 09:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Doctor talks a lot about family, children and the like, maybe its just another bit of reminiscing Alastairward 13:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think they're brothers, then "you watch too much television" (The Sound of Drums).--Jeffro77 09:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There has never been anything that comes right out and says that The Master and The Doctor are brothers, but I seem to remember that there was an implication (?), suggestion (?), hint (?) in "Planet Of Fire" that they might be brothers. That and the fact of the Doctor being the last Time Lord would account for The Doctor begging The Master to regenerate and his tears when the Master dies.Hx823 (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Quest for new life

Is there a sentence missing from the start of the paragraph? Which Master does it refer to? Alastairward 13:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote

I was just gonna leave this, since I don't care that much, but I see other anons beside me have also removed the quote, so I'd like to clarify that they're not all the same person. I've only edited the quote twice, once without a reason and once, after it was reverted, with a reason. I can only speak for myself, but my reasoning is we simply don't know it's Simm. It doesn't sound like him to me (different accent or not, his voice is rougher and older-sounding), and even though that's open to interpretation, it's going to be speculation either way. Until it's in an episode, it can't be said for definite. So, I'll leave it at that. I didn't want people to think this was just one anons doing, especially after the request to take any further disagreement to the talk page. --77.99.30.226 23:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

But in turn, we also do not know that its not Simm. And in a trailer preview, I'm sure they would allow the audience to hear an audio soundbite of Saxon's voice, so I'm pretty sure its Simm Jonathan D Milne 06:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Still speculation to include it, then. Anyway, the 'next time' trailer for Human Nature (this two-parter was my personal take on the origin of those lines) included them. --77.99.30.226 12:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The voice saying quote sounds like a young person... perhaps a teenager or boy. They also played the quote during the preview of one of the Human Nature storys... since I've seen part one... it must be from part 2 and not from Sound of drums at all.--Dr who1975 01:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, young Timmy, explaining to John Smith who the Doctor is. Daibhid C 23:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspected it was soemthing like that. How anyone could even begin to think that was Simm is beyond me.--Dr who1975 18:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know why this fragment is here?

The future
..also confirmed the rumours in a comment he gave to The Sun at the Royal Television Society awards. In BBC-released promotional images from the episodes in which Simm appears. Another report from The Sun claims that actor Michael Sheen was also in the running to play the character..—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.112.144 (talk • contribs)

Checked the history. I remeber this one. It was a silly sentence that originally read "In BBC-released promotional images from the episodes in which Simm appears, however, he appears to be lacking the Master's customary beard." Don't know why any of us hadn't removed it in it's entirety. I have done so now.--Dr who1975 22:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Simm and Jacobi

Just for those who aren't aware: some people keep adding Derek Jacobi and John Simm to the list of TV Masters before we can properly source either. I've just reverted one such change now. Mark H Wilkinson 16:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

someones added it again, we should wait till tommorow to add it.--Lerdthenerd 19:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well its official now!

Well, can those who are updating this item please write it with a degree of professionalism. I mean, look at some of the phrases which are being added: "with the chameleon watch that makes him human"!!?? - 81.129.64.71 19:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, youthful high spirits. This is minutes-old information! I expect Wikipedia-level prose will evolve with time. -- SamSim 21:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

shouldn't john simm be the only master in the main pic, with all six masters in a collage below? after al, for the doctor we've just got david tennant, the current doctor, in the main picture.

No, on Doctor (Doctor Who) we have the collage on top. Using Simm is recentism, as I think most people associate with either Ainley's or Delgado's Master, not Simm's or Jacobi's, who've had about two minutes of screen time so far each. Will ^(talk) 16:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case... the Doctor article should only have a picture of Tom Baker on it who, for Americans (who greatly out number the English), since most of us only associate the show with him. Are you willing to do that?--Dr who1975 17:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth, but yes, were only one Doctor allowed on top of the infobox, I would choose the Fourth as he is the most notable Doctor. Will ^(talk) 18:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, there are more people in the U.S.A. than in Britain, but are there more people who are interested in Doctor Who? Gallifreyan Summoner 11:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking about how ridiculous the recentism claim is... there's a HUGE PICTURE THAT INCLUDES AINLEYS AND DELGATOS PICTURES right at the top of the page.... who's going to get confused by that?--Dr who1975 00:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, pre-Utopia, it was Delgado, and just after, it wheeled between Simm and Delgado. I'm fine with the collage. Will ^(talk) 01:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ on the "most representative doctor" battle. Even though I agree that Tom Baker has been the "longest-serving" Doctor of all times, to me, the Doctor doesn't appear as Tom Baker, as I'm too young to have seen any of those episodes. In fact, I have only seen one with Tom Baker in it, Genesis of the Daleks, and that's it. To me, the Doctor is as David Tennant portrays it. In my view, a collage is confusing, and I think that the Doctor should be depicted as the current Doctor, and not a past reincarnation. Or, if we are to stick by the collage, shouldn't there be a collage for Romana and the Rani as well? Romana has been depicted by two people, yet only Romana II is the leading image. Besides, the television movie revolves around the Master's quest for more lives, as he has come to the end of his 13 lives. So how can the Master's current incarnation be the sixth, if it is (at least) the fifteenth?George Adam Horváth 13:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sixth Master the Doctor has encountered. I didn't say all people would see Baker as the Doctor, but most parodies of Doctor Who do include the Fourth Doctor. Will ^(talk) 14:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Meddling Monk is The Master?

The article mentions, understandably, that fans have speculated that the the Monk is a pre--Delgado incarnation of the Master. However, Paul Cornell, Martin Day, and Keith Topping, in their book Doctor Who: The Discontinuity Guide, claim that dialogue in "The Time Meddler" explicitly states that this is the first time he and the Doctor have met, and therefore he is not the Master. As it is stated twice during the third Doctor's era ("The Sea Devils" and "The Time Monster") that they "were in school together," and in "The Five Doctors" the Ainley Master tells the first Doctor that they were at the Academy together, the first contention would indeed mandate the second. As I have seen that story only once in my life, more than twenty years ago, I do not know if the dialogue actually establishes what they claim. Along with much great work ("Season 6 (b)" at the top of the list), they did make a few incredible errors. So can anyone verify or refute that? If it is true, it should be in the article. Ted Watson 21:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Discontinuity Guide" is wrong. But that is to be expected. There is nothing at all in "The Time Meddler" that states(explicitly or implicitly) that they have never met before. I challenge anyone to produce this "dialogue in The Time Meddler that explicitly states this is the first time [The Monk] and the Doctor have met". They will be unable to. Even in the Novelisation of The Time Meddler, it makes it quite clear that they actually recognise each other-

"Outside on the staircase, the Monk appeared, holding aloft a burning torch. He regarded his captive's pathetic attempts at escape with evil amusement. Their eyes met and in that instant a flash of recognition passed between the two old men." (Chapter 3, page 46)

Era

Ive tried to wikify the era 3 times, as I dont know what it means, but it keeps getting reverted, what is the Gallifrey era, and does the avearge wikipedian know what it means? 86.12.249.63 18:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It only means anything within the Doctor Who universe, but you mustn't wikify something just to know what it means. Just type it into the search box.--Rambutan (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So how are you supposed to know what it means?

It should link to Chronology of the Doctor Who universe#Adventures on, or dealing with, Gallifrey.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have linked to the unwritten article Gallifrey era a number of times, as it is wp policy to wikify those terms people may find interesting and want to learn more about, however this has been reverted on a number of occasions! On looking on the net, this term seems to be a neoligism, and i cannot find a refernece outside of a wiki, or a wiki mirror so I have tagged it for a reference 86.12.249.63 16:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed to Rassilon Era (sourced from TV movie) Will ^(talk) 02:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Professor Yana

I'm just making acouple of quick edits to the secton on Jacobi's portrayal - for one thing, i don't think that the drums are an example of Tinnitus, which is a fault of the ears - given that there's no way this is sourced info and not just speculation, I'm removing the reference. I might pop in sometingh under parallells with the doctor on his dress/nickname being first doctor -esque - if anyone wishes to change things back, feel free! 90.241.19.245 21:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Tinnitus is likely not the best description of Yana's problem. Auditory hallucinations might be a better fit, only I'm not sure of the appropriateness of linking to an article that deals with real life psychiatric conditions when this one only deals with the problems of an SF villain. Mark H Wilkinson 21:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning that it's quite possible that the Master did not choose the name Yana because of the word being an acronym of "You are not alone". The more likely scenario, it seems, is that the Face of Boe based the phrase on the name, rather than the Master basing the name on the phrase. Gallifreyan Summoner 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly though, the Master wouldn't have chosen his name at all. Isn't it the TARDIS that creates the story, including the name, for the Time Lord, so it is the Master's TARDIS, wherever it is, that created the name Yana for him. Also, Yana lived around the year 100 trillion, and was living with the lifespan of a human. The Face of Boe lived from before the year 200000, to the year 5 billion and 53. As far as I was aware, the Face of Boe couldn't travel in time - though I can't be certain on that - which means it would have been impossible for him to develop a phrase based on a name 99.995 trillion years after he died. --81.152.101.219 01:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case the connection between the name Yana and "You are not alone" is simply a co-incidence from an in-universe perspective. Why would the episode have such a focus on a co-incidence? Either way, "In his disguised form he is known as Professor Yana (an acronym for "You are not alone")" seems to imply that the name is based on the phrase, which doesn't seem to make sense from an in-universe perspective. As far as the possibility of Yana and the Face of Boe meeting is concerned, perhaps one of them could travel in time. Yana mentioned that there was time travel "in the old days", and although that was probably a memory from his time as the Master it might be from his time as Yana. Gallifreyan Summoner 07:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Co-incidence, I feel I should add, obviously isn't too much of a stretch, precedent considered. Lazarus, anyone? --77.99.30.226 20:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It could be one of those bad wolf type things. Some being whos more powerful than all of them set it up. I actually doubt they will explain the Yana - "You Are Not Alone" connection ny further... it's the same thing as the "Mister Saxon" - "Master No Six" (which admittedly has yet to be a major highlight of the plot line).... the connection is there becaue they wrote it that way. I think you're all over thinking it.--Dr who1975 21:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"They wrote it that way" is merely a production explanation, not an in-universe one. If there is no in-universe explanation then the whole thing is a co-incidence in terms of the plot and the way the episode had such a focus on it makes little sense. The Face of Boe gave a clue and Yana was the answer. There must be some connection between the two characters that led the Face of Boe to say those four words. Gallifreyan Summoner 11:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of my point... Is there any need to address it as anything more than a purposely written coincidence. Such coincidences are all over the place in Who.--Dr who1975 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This one apparently isn't. But that assumes that the Face of Boe is Jack Harkness. Harkness saw Yana change, then became the Face of Boe. Or it could be Boe somehow saw The Master change himself into Yana just before launching himself to the end of time.--Marhawkman (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Master no six

Although this has never been officially confirmed by the studio, the fact that "Mister Saxon" is an anagram of "Master no. six" was a major feature of fan speculation about the series, and deserves to be mentioned (Googling "Mister Saxon" "Master no six" produces 742 hits, almost all of them from fan forums). And while the studio has been tight lipped, they did say in the Utopia factfile that there were six incarnations of the Master, despite admitting that there was no real way to know which incarnation Gordon Tipple played, and, more tellingly, listed John Simm's character's name as "Master no. six". Serendipodous 10:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I guarantee you this is what they were thinking...

1 Roger Delgato

2 Peter Pratt & Geoffrey Beevers

3 Anthony Ainley (& Gordon Tipple if you must bring him into this)

4 Eric Roberts

5 Derek Jacobi

6 John Simm

Doesn't that make the most sense?--Dr who1975 21:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, should Tipple (and possibly Beevors) be removed from the list of actors in the infobox, with a note further down, in the same way we don't list Hurndall in the Doctor's infobox. MartinMcCann 11:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

On the whole, no. Hurndall's mentioned in the infobox on the First Doctor's page, and may well deserve the same on the main Doctor page (subject to discussion). Moreover, the above grouping of Masters is speculative; we don't have a reliable reference for it. Mark H Wilkinson 12:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't speculative - it's pulled directly from the BBC website and so is as official as you can get. As for Hurndall, he isn't mentioned in the infobox using the rationale that he isn't playing the Doctor, but is playing William Hartnell playing the Doctor. In a similar manner, Tipple isn't playing the Master, but is playing Tony Ainley playing the Master. MartinMcCann 12:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I could see pulling Tipple (depending on what the BBC web site says) bot not Beevers. Beevers is credited officially as playing the Master in the closing credits of the Keeper of Traken.--Dr who1975 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hurndall is in the credits for The Five Doctors, but he still isn't in our article. The BBC website, here, makes clear that Pratt and Beevors were playing the same incarnation of the Master, and strongly leans towards saying the same abot Tipple WRT Ainley. Therefore those two should be removed with a note further down the page noting their appearences, going by the precident established in the Doctor's article. MartinMcCann 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Fact Files have exampled trivia and error in the past. The content is produced by noted fan Peter Ware, and shouldn't really be treated as authorititive or infallible; he's not the Pope of Who, he's just a fan.Mark H Wilkinson 19:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between the number of actors who have portrayed the character and the number of incarnations shown on-screen. The second on-screen incarnation was portrayed in equal measure by two actors, so it is sensible to credit them both; Tipple may or may not have been portraying the Ainley incarnation. The official site is itself ambiguous on the issue, except for noting that, either way, Tipple on his own isn't really counted as a legitimate incarnation of the character.Aderack 12:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

But in the absence of a filmed clip of RTD specifically stating which actors are the "official" Masters, an article on the copyright-holder's website, regardless of who wrote it, would appear to be a reliable source. MartinMcCann 10:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a reliable source for Peter Ware's take on things. Mark H Wilkinson 10:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A take on things that the BBC evidently agrees with, otherwise they wouldn't have put his little essay up on their website. MartinMcCann 10:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a take the BBC can't be bothered to disagree with. Unlike Star Wars, there's no such thing as an officially mandated canon for Doctor Who.

Why are you so afire to remove Beevers, anyway? At least with Tipple, you can argue his cough-and-oops-no-actual-spit in the TVM isn't significant. Beevers accounts for half the decaying Master's on screen stories. Mark H Wilkinson 10:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm "afire" to remove Beevers. The problem is that it conflicts with the style developed fot the Doctor, where only the main actors are credited. While the clear refutation to that is that the programme is "Doctor Who" and not "Master Who", it does set a precident for how different incarnations of the same Time Lord are credited. Given that it isn't entirely clear what was wrong with the Pratt/Beevers Master (the Delgado Master in extreme old age? A failed regeneration? Given that he hadn't vanished into thin air like Chronotis did, my personal theory is that he was somehow in the process of a continual 13th regeneration that he was managing to hold off while he searched for a way to gain a new body) I'd go for pulling Tipple from the infobox and crediting Pratt and Beevers as "Peter Pratt/Geoffrey Beevers" to emphasise the fact that they were the same incarnation, despite the fact that that Master didn't appear often enough for either of them to be regarded as the "definitive" portrayal. MartinMcCann 11:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

For starters, there's no Wikipedia policy or guideline about precedents being given authority, as far as I know. The approach to the info box on Doctor (Doctor Who) appears to be to only include actors that were the main players of the lead role on whichever televised incarnation of the show was around at the time (not including spoof material); so we don't get Hurndall, the Watcher or the Morbius Doctors. We can't naturally extend that to Master (Doctor Who) because only two actors have inarguably been contracted in that manner: Delgado and Ainley. It's better practice to be inclusive for the TV Masters and let people make up their own minds about who's who and who really "counts". Mark H Wilkinson 12:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. DonQuixote 19:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added Richard Hurndall to The Doctor page (between Peter Davison and Colin Baker) ... let's see what happens —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr who1975 (talk • contribs)

Deleted, as it confuses matters. The entry makes it appear that there is an extra regeneration. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's funny you should bring that up here because it is the same argument people will use to remove Geoffrey Beavers (and Gordon Tipple) from this page... it makes it look like there were more than 6 versions of the Master.--Dr who1975 03:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the argument to Talk:Doctor (Doctor Who)#Richard Hurndall. Please discuss.

I took the Master's mention of being "resurrected" to mean that he was given a new series of 12 regenerations, with the Jacobi version being the 1st of the Master's new forms (and that form had apparently lived out a long life at the end of the Universe, too). So the Simm version is the second form (his first actual "regeneration") and he has regenerated into a different personality this time; In the past, the Master seems to regenerate into another version of himself with the same basic personality, though with varying degrees of extravagance. Anyway, seeing as the Master used all his regenerations and actually stole a few bodies to stay alive, I take the term "resurrected" to mean he started over, which sort of makes the list you're discussing even more complex, as we're now talking about the Master's first series of regenerations versus his second, unprecedented series of regenerations. 68.77.108.55 02:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Eight-Year-Old Master

Anyone know who played the child Master in the flashback in the Sound of Drums? 67.128.224.226 01:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

He was on screen about as much as Gordon Tipple, who is mentioned in the infobox, so it seems only fair to list him as well. --Billpg 17:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Cruciform

Could somebody put in a quick note to expand on the masters statement about being their when the Cruciform fell. Nothing too complex just a sentence or so to explain what it was to fans of the new series who are unfamiliar with the older Dr. Who episodes/books.

perfectblue 08:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing to expand upon. It's new to old fans as well as new. Presumably it has something to do with the Time War that happened between series. DonQuixote 01:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Companions

I don't edit Wiki too often, and I don't think I've ever used the Talk pages before, so please excuse the fauxs pas I might commit.

Saw that four 'Companions' were listed, went about adding a following bit, looks like heavy editing occurred while making sure the Preview was right, I first found it in the wrong place, then in a revamped Companions section, then a bit got lost. Not sure if it's worth putting back in, but I preserve it here for greater minds than mine to think about, and possibly even rephrase. 'Lost' bit in us bold. If it hasn't found itself back in by now. ;)

In "Utopia", Chantho plays a similar 'Companion' role to the Professor Yana persona. Chantho states that she has been with him for 17 years as a 'devoted assistant', exhibiting the manner of one-way relationship that is recognised and commented upon by the characters of Captain Jack and Martha. If this is a reflection of a core 'personality leakage' from the persona of The Master, while in the human form of the Professor, then it may indicate a shared tendency with his fellow 'rogue' Time Lord, even if its fulfilment is normally held in check.

--62.49.25.104 20:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so why are there no references to the Master's collusions with the Rani? They're both evil, renegade Time Lords, they've worked together at least twice, so they obviously have a relationship, even if it's just one evil genius to another. I tried to insert a reference to her as a sort-of companion, but it got edited out. Doesn't she deserve a reference? I'd say she's significant enough to the Master's storyline. Esprix 00:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Costumes

I'm reposting this from the Time Lord discussion page in case anyone needs it.

The black and white Academy uniform/robe worn by the eight year old Master is directly based on the earliest depiction of Time Lords in the episode The War Games. There is another image of them here. Then there was a second uniform design as seen here from The Three Doctors which seems to have evolved into the current version. --Basique 18:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Master's aliases

Zythe has noted[2] the info on the Master's aliases etc may be more appropriately placed in the characteristics section than in history. Any thoughts on this? Mark H Wilkinson 17:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Parallels between Simm's Master and Tennant's Doctor

I noticed that during The Sound of Drums, when Harold's wife is remarking about Archangel being 100%, The Master responds "Oooh, 99, 98..", his voice inflection is similar to that of The Doctor when the Doctor makes remarks like that. I don't know if that made any sense, but should something be mentioned about how both Time Lords are now strikingly similar, expanding on Jacobi's line "If the Doctor can be young and strong..."? Tim 19:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There is something in there now but I'm not sure about the wording. I felt from the episode and from watching confidential that there is a case to be a bit stronger on the wording. The production team deliberately set out to make the Master a direct parallel to the Doctor in mannerism, intelligence, inventivness and sense of humour. This is hardly new as prior incarnations were occasionally parallels of the Doctor (Pertwee's dramatic and flamboyant incarnation was mirrored by Roger Delgado's performance) but that is difficult to reference. AlanD 21:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The last Confidential episode noted that the various parallels are intentional, only I have no idea how to write it in without completely restructuring the characteristics section and I don't have enough knowledge of Classic Who to do that confidently.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget love of contemporary music. Will ^(talk) 13:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Lucy Saxon

should it be mentiond that the Master was geting massages from other women in front of her and jokeing about it that might have drover her to shoot him (or to say Doctor) ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 11:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope.--Rambutan (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My impression was that she shot him to save him from the Doctor, with both herself and the Master knowing that she could resurrect the Master. However would she have been able to use his LASER screwdriver? 81.109.216.79 18:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My view is that she shot him because he's been abusing her for a year, shown he'd only been using her in his quest for power and didn't really care for her and had terrorised and killed millions of people - but that's just my view.

193.243.227.1 (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oopps sligthy of topic does anyone know if Lucy had children with Harold Saxon(master) before saxon came to power {82.47.78.127 (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)}

Characteristics

I've undone Mark W's deletion of an entire section, because I think that they're perfectly notable - they were referenced in the TSoD fact-file, for example. Any opinions?--Rambutan (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If anything, they belong as continuity notes in the relevant episodes. They can't really be termed characteristics of the Master per se: one jelly baby incident, two uses of the imperative verb "attend" and the Teletubbies/Clangers note hardly translate into a gelatinous confectionary addiction, a catchphrase and a fascination for children's television. Mark H Wilkinson 17:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA: that's what the notes are. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Race?

Since the Master has taken several semi-permanent forms that were not Timelords/Galifreyans, shouldn't his race be listed as "Timelord/other"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.10.228 (talk • contribs)

Nope. He's a Time Lord, he just occasionally inhabited the bodies of others.--Rambutan (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Image

While well put together I prefer the older image as this one has obscured faces. This one is more artistic but less informative. --GracieLizzie 23:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

TCE Reference

When the Master used the laser screwdriver on the doctor the second time, it shrunk him. Couldn't that be a reference to the TCE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.178.222 (talk • contribs)

It's unlikely, to say the least. Besides, we would need a reliable source to assert any such thing. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 06:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheating the Cheetahs

How did the Master escape from the planet of the 'Cheetah People'??--Jeffro77 09:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, he's invincible. The entire universe knows that! - 210.1.205.56 01:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is OR and against WP:FORUM, myself.--Rambutan (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record he didn't escape the planet of the Cheetah People, he was destroyed then the Time Lords ressurected him. That's what he means in "The Sound of Drums" when he says "The Time Lords ressurected me." --Illustrious One (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought he was talking about the advents of the TV movie ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Darkpath.jpg

Image:Darkpath.jpg 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 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 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a rationale for using the image in this article, but I'm slightly concerned that the rationale may be stretching things a bit. My understanding is that a book cover can be used in an article not about the book if that article contains (cited) analysis and commentary on the book. This article really only has plot elements from The Dark Path. Is there anything we can add to satisfy this criterion more fully? Perhaps some commentary from I, Who, or a Doctor Who Magazine review of the book, or article about the various presentations of the Master in spin-off fiction? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TippleMaster.png

Image:TippleMaster.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 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 19:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Rationale added. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Do you think we should add the Master to the category of Suicidal fictional characters? After all he was perfectly willing to blow up the Earth with him on it until the Doctor convinced him not to and later chose to die in the Doctor's arms when he was perfectly capable of saving himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.203.136 (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, although you can say that he's been suicidal on occasion, I'd say that it's not a defining characteristic of the character. He's far more homicidal (and, indeed, genocidal) than suicidal. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I suppose so. It was just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.203.136 (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The beautiful picture

I love the collage of Masters at the top of the page, mirroring the wonderful Doctor one on that page. However, I notice that the Masters go from left to right on both levels, while the Doctors simply go clockwise. Personally, I find clockwise more instinctive, but I was wondering whether other people thought they should be consistent (in whichever setup), for easier comparisons between the two pictures. Just a little thing, but we're striving for perfection! 79.65.100.239 23:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you have something there. I wonder which version we should use? --The F50 Man 21:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Child Master

Does the child Master not make the toal number onscreen up to 7? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.187.145 (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No the young Master seen was the first Master (he just got older). The Time Lords don't always need a regeneration look different they can age too you know (just slowly), you think the Doctor was born as an old man. (Speaker180 (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 18:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

how can u say that wheres your evidence, he could or could not be Roger Delgado's portrayal of the master for example the doctor states that they were friends once and both attended the same academy what means that both the master and the doctor are the same age, let Peter Pratt's portrayal of the master claims to be at the end of his regeneration cycle.

• so either this is a future incarnation of the master (which i doubt as the future Master and the doctor from that time would not be compatible-like jack said how he had to wait for a version of the doctor that already knew him)
  • all when the doctor says that they were both at the same academy the master might of been some sort of authority figure like a teacher.

(please excuse my spelling) User:Kami-Sama —Preceding comment was added at 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • I don't think you understand Whoniverse time travel. The Master could quite easily have gone off and spent 1000 of his years going through his lives while the Doctor only went through a decade or heck, a few minutes. The problem with crossing timelines only comes into place when you 'lock' an event by passing through it- Besides, Jack seems to have been over-cautious, as River Song was able to meet the Doctor early with no negative effects, not to mention the Ainley Master meeting the first 3 Docs out of sequence in The Five Doctors.

And anyway, you're assuming that the Master's lives were of equal length to the Doctor's, when he's been shown to burn through them much more quickly. The Simm Master lasted 2 1/2 years while Roberts only lasted a day!--86.141.247.228 (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

beard?

"(In the Children in Need special Time Crash, the tenth Doctor refers to her as the Master's "beard.")"

Surely this is an interpretation of a line, not absolute fact?

Ninquelosse (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is interpretation. The previous Doctor says "Has he still got that rubbish beard?" to which the Tenth Doctor responds "No but he has got a wife." He isn't calling her his beard at all. He's just saying that she is the substitute for his beard because he's lost the beard but he's got a wife which is something the Master didn't have before. We're really running out of things to discuss aren't we. --Illustrious One (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a gay joke.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it? Am I being horribly naive? --Illustrious One (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A closeted gay mans wife is typically referred to as his "beard". But if you've never heard the term before, it's not one you would pick up on.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

God, all the speculation and interpretation... Not everything has a deeper meaning, sometimes a beard is just a literal beard. Like, hair on the chin. It would be a gay joke if 5 asked "Has he still got that rubbish beard?" and 10 replied "He's got a beard, but not in the way you'd expect." But sometimes saying someone doesn't have a beard, but does have a wife can be taken at face value as meaning "He doesn't have any hair on his face, but he is married." Also, seeing as the Master referred to Jack as either a "Girlie" or a "Freak" for being bi, I highly doubt he's gay himself. I know I've made my point already, but not everything is innuendo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.161.48 (talk • contribs) 18:39, November 30, 2008

True... but according to a poll on the Doctor Who Forum, about 68% of fans think that this particular line was an innuendo-ish joke playing on this meaning of the word "beard". Of course, that's highly unscientific, and doesn't come close to meeting WP:RS... which is why the joke isn't mentioned in the article. Heck, we shouldn't even be discussing this here, because Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. Then again, maybe the Doctor says "No he's got a wife" because he means that the Master would get rid of his beard if he had a wife because beards don't usually "turn women on" as it were. --Illustrious One (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No... He's suggesting, in a joking manner, that the Master is gay.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thought so. Just a suggestion. --Illustrious One (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Name dispute

I understand there's been a bit of conflict regarding the title of the page and whether it should be "Master (Doctor Who)" or "The Master (Doctor Who)". Might I recommend changing the title of the article to "Master of All Things" as that is his full title. The article on the character The Source from Charmed is called The Source of All Evil as that is his full title so I think that should be the case with this article. Anyone else agree? --Illustrious One (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh er, no it isn't. Not anymore. Point still stands though. --Illustrious One (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the first time I've ever heard him being referred to as "The Master of All Things". Throughout the series, he's been simply referred to as "The Master". So I have to oppose your suggestion. As to "Master" vs "The Master", I really don't mind either way. DonQuixote (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, he isn't usually referred to by his full title. As for Master vs the Master I think the latter is more sensible personally but it doesn't really matter. It's like trying to decide if the article on Mr White from James Bond should be called "White (James Bond) or "Mr White (James Bond."

It's more a matter of following Wikipedia's manual of style, which says to avois starting article titles with the and other articles. — Edokter • Talk • 20:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes... wouldn't really call it a "conflict" either, as it was more a case of one person deciding to move the page without any discussion. After that first move was undone, the editor repeated the move here and did the same thing at Doctor (Doctor Who) while ignoring requests to discuss. (For example, my note on his/her talk page was blanked without any reply.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GBeeversMaster.jpg

Image:GBeeversMaster.jpg 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) 19:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

I am sorry but, although this is obviously a much-loved article and a solid start has been made, I am going to have to quick-fail it on two points.

• The first is the presence of the Needs Citations banner as, under the Quick Fail criteria, this qualifies as an automatic fail: #Presence of any correctly applied cleanup banners, including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}} or similar tags.

• The second, and obviously related to the first point, is the lack of references contained in the article. Under WP, a quick fail can be carried out for this: #A complete lack of reliable sources - see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Ideally, all major points in the article should be referenced, with at least one reliable reference per paragraph. At the moment, there are only a handful. This might take some time, but I am sure the enthusiasm several editors have already shown for this page will help ensure the work gets done.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. --seahamlass 11:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Drumming

the last episode seemed to hint that the sound heard by the master that drove him insane might have been his own heartbeat.--Marhawkman (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It did didn't it. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that looking into the Time Vortex provides one with heightened awareness which would explain why some people are inexplicably "inspired" by looking into it so maybe it rendered the Master ultra-sensitive meaning that he could hear the beating of his hearts ten times louder, thus causing him to go mad. Of course I'm veering quite close to OR (not to mention sounding like a complete geek) here but I think maybe a note should be added to the article saying "The sound of drumming heard by the Master could be his own heartbeat" or something like that. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... Maybe better phrased to emphasize the fact that the "Drumming" stopped when his hearts did?--Marhawkman (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so. Bloody good theory though wasn't it. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah.... I didn't even have to watch the ep twice to catch that one. They just barely stopped short of spelling it out.--Marhawkman (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about mine. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Hmm... not sure, but I know that I can sometimes hear my own heartbeat. It's not really all that odd. But constantly hearing it is a bit strange. The sticking point is that apparently he started noticing it after he'd already gone nuts.--Marhawkman (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It is quite hard to percieve one's intended tone in a written format. I will therefore assume good faith and take it that you are not trying to sound utterly obnoxious but at the moment, you are. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Tissue Compression Eliminator

"usually killing them in the process" - has anyone actually survived this shrinking effect? If not we can drop "usually". Totnesmartin (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep - the Master himself, as seen in Planet of Fire. Captain Seafort (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Under the Stairs" short story

No matter who it's written by, it's a fanfic until and unless it gets printed, and therefore has no place in this entry.--86.138.211.192 (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit box notice

After I click "edit" on the article, I see a box above the editable area that says "Return of the Master Before adding text stating that the character of the Master will be returning, please ensure that it is sourced to the BBC or another reliable source. Tabloid rumours do not meet this requirement." Anyone know how that notice was placed there? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that notice... I added it some time back when this page and several others were repeatedly being hit with tabloid-sourced rumours. Probably safe to pull it now. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that I know who placed it there, I found it. Didn't know those could be made for individual articles. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, great - thanks. (Saves me the trouble of finding it.) Yes, apparently there is quite a bit of flexibility in terms of where a notice will appear. I've found it very useful for situations where some sort of caution is needed, but said caution does not warrant a template at the top of the article. Now, as for removing it, I'm not sure if the proper method is to delete it or blank it. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have seen a few blanked "pages" in the MediaWiki: namespace. On the other hand, WP:G7 suggests that blanking invites deletion. And editing and deleting in the MediaWiki: namespace are both admin-only. So it probably doesn't matter too much which you do. This is assuming, of course, that a blank page and a deleted page look the same on the article - I haven't tested to see whether that's the case. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I say just delete it. It can always be recreated, and it is one less transclusion for MediaWiki to handle. — Edokter • Talk • 14:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Return of the Master?

Should this recent John Simm quote be included in the article?

"I might be the Master again... I'm not allowed to say."

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article5174404.ece MultipleTom (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Too inconclusive for this article. Might be better suited for John Simm article though. — Edokter • Talk • 18:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There is now loads of evidence to support this theory of the Master's return (Rose's aswell):

The Planet of the Dead episode hints at the Masters return. The drup taps tap-tap-tap-tap was a significant plot mechanism in The Sound of Drums as illustrated in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGQooQeNvbs. The whole score to that episode used that repeating four beat pattern also. The Master described it as being the noise he heard constantly in his head. 4 knocks is very like four taps or drum beats and fits with what a lot of news sites are saying including the Sun newspaper.

The words "it is returning through the dark" have would also fit with reports of Rose returning after being trapped in the alternate universe.

There are several site reporting this:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article2329695.ece - Says Rose is coming back as well as John Simm as the Master

http://www.tvsquad.com/2009/04/06/doctor-who-spoilers-for-tennants-last-hurrah/

http://www.denofgeek.com/television/229592/doctor_who_john_simm_returns.html - John Simm seen on location

Russel T Davies (the writer of this episode) is well known for hiding messages about plot lines in the episodes and this all lives up to the mark!

Amhoyle (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a single reliable source is listed there. We need cast iron information, not speculation from tabloids who quote alleged insiders, nor can we use blurry images of actors on set as they could just be visiting (unlikely I know, but possible). A lot of your case involves original research, which is not permitted on wikipedia. Although all the signs do seem to point towards The Masters return (I'd bet money on it myself), we cannot add this information until a good source states it. magnius (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok fair points. I'm happy to leave this in the discussion page until/if more reliable sources can be attributed. Apologies, it was not intended as original research even if it comes across as such.

Amhoyle (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It comes across as such simply because it is, but Wikipedia's processes are partially to blame for that. There isn't enough "obvious" in the episode ending for it to be anything other than speculation, and there are still no valid sources to support any of the claims. I'm sure there will be soon, but it's also likely that it's just smoke and mirrors (invented by the fans or the developers, take your pick). --Human.v2.0 (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"Episode 18", This website confirms he is shooting Doctor Who specials. This is conclusive evidence that John Simm will be returning to the show. Coupled with the quote from the times online article, he confirms he is always going to be the Master, therefore, the Master is returning.--Clackson101 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've also said over here that's a self-published source. You also have to be careful to avoid synthesis. Maccy69 (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the writers have been decidedly vague in regards to Mr. Simm and his appearance on-set. Flashbacks in particular have been mentioned, and lines to the effect that what has been shot in scenes isn't necessarily what it seems. Since there are no sources usable just yet, this is just a further argument to the fact that we currently just don't know enough for inclusion into the wiki. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this Guardian article qualify? Daibhid C (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Late response, but in general the Guardian is considered a reliable source. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

HE's BAAAACK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.30.93 (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

incarnation articles

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) 13:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as all the info fits on this page, I see no need to split. — Edokter • Talk • 13:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What about the Doctor he has 12 articles and thats saying something since one of them is main info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.130.8.135 (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The Doctor is also the star, with each actor portraying the character through a season (or more) of episodes. Each actor/doctor has recieved real world reaction and criticism, and each needs it. By contrast, the Master is only an occasional foil/foe, and needs less space, as he has recieved less coverage in the real world, which is the measurement of record. ThuranX (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

check the tardis idex file website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.130.8.135 (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What it boils down to is this: The Doctor's article got too big so a decision was made to split it up. If the Master's article get's too big, then it'll be split up too. DonQuixote (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The Doctor already has a main article titled Doctor(doctor who) so the incarnation in universe articles should be merged to this

Frankly, no. The Doctor has pages for each incarnation because each incarnation had a heck of a lot of airtime. Each incarnation of the Master did not. What was done with the Doctor pages is not ideal unless, like in this case, you have far too much information to reasonably fit into one page and make it remain readable. It would be silly to do that here. Also, please sign your comments. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Planet of the Dead

To explain, the Master is referenced in the episode as "he will knock four times". This also references the "The Sound of Drums" where Saxton explains the nature of the drums in his head and its influence throughout the episode, with even Saxton tapping the drums in an "repetive four-tap" after killing off his party. Fractyl (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"He will knock four times" is too vague in and of itself to assume that it refers to the Master. Unless you have a reference that states that is who it means, it remains Original Research. It is likely correct, but you can't keep adding it in because it is original research. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I can wait, but you just have to blame how the show works. Each season tends to lay out "secret clues" to how it's going to end without exposing too much on info to ruin it for the viewers. Like I said, the knock four times hints the Master's "drum 4-beat pattern" which is an hint like the first one about Tennant's departure. The middle of the line is a mystery but the "It is returning, it is returning through the dark" does have connections in Torchwood where Harkness is concerned.Fractyl (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If anything, we can blame how Wikipedia policies work. All of these are hints to be interpreted by the viewer, and viewer/editor interpretations fall squarely into original research. I don't blame you for this, and this stuff would be all fine and good on one of many other sites, it just doesn't work here. Unless BBC, a Dcotor Who/Torchwood employee, or some other reputable source discusses it these things just can't be included on Wiki. I'm sure there's something here on this site that would explain it better than I am, I'm just not aware of it off the top of my head. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

how can he be the last of the timelords when this guy exists?

can someone explain, source it, and include it in the article? right now it's like 1984, 'there are 3 lights' when there were obviously 4.--Leladax (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll just have to wait until Christmas. — Edokter • Talk • 20:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

to see that he wasn't the last since the master is there (and probably will be in the future) and a whole bunch of other timelords have means of escaping? ye right, answered. people have to realize this isn't star trek and continuity is silly. --Leladax (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

the master

his name is Jehosephat. the lord president of gallifrey says it in the 5 doctors with peter davidson. Riya2595 (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

the doctor also says it as the TARDIS is crashing its just an exspresion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.47.180 (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No The Doctor said Jeronimo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.163.142 (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Doctor said "Geronimo". However, the reference to "Jehosephat" is indeed just an expression.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me princess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.109.243 (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Redemption

As The End of Time part two has now aired, can someone update the article to state the the master realised he was being used as a pawn by the time lords by planting the sound of the drumming in his head and redeemed/sacrificed himself to save the doctor when he was about to be executed by them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.19.29 (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Shape changer

In 'The Deadly Assassin' The Master is a hideous monster because he's at the end of his regenenative cycle. He need's to survive somehow and in 'The Keeper of Traken' he takes over a trakenite/Nyssa's father and that's when the Albert Ainsley Master was born. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galifrey64 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Relationship with the Doctor

I've only quickly read the bit on the Relationship with the Doctor after it was removed and I'm not that sure that this text deserved to be removed this quickly. Am I the only one? Napy1kenobi (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

None of it is sourced. And, for example, "On many occasions he appears desperate for the Doctor to understand the nature of his insanity," – textbook original research. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 17:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh and this is somehow a bad thing. --86.174.21.44 (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It is if you consider that it's against Wikipedia policy. DonQuixote (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your point being? --86.174.21.44 (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If it is against policy, it cannot be included in the article. — Edokter • Talk • 01:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

How very accommodating. --86.174.21.44 (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very...that is, it accommodates for incorrect information and rumours. Very encyclopaedic in its basis. DonQuixote (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If I had my way, all policies would be disbanded, starting with NOR with that ridiculous Verifiability, not truth immediately after. NPOV will be allowed to stay however. --86.150.169.20 (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has it's own policies, which are the result of years of collaboration by thousands of editors. You either choose to follow them or not. Editing Wikipedia incurs that you follow our policy. If you don't, you can always start your own wiki, with the policies you like. — Edokter • Talk • 00:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Doctor Who Movie

How come his two forms aren't shown in his page picture as some of his forms, I mildly understand the second one not being there because it really was just a possession, but why not his snake form? In the movie the Doctor states that when regenerating he can take the form of anything, and the novelisation does call it one of the Master's regenerations...

Though I think the human one should also be included because that was a form the Master took, he was the Master, regardless of whether or not it was just a possession. felinoel (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The human one (Eric Roberts) is included in the collage. DonQuixote (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

A novelisation is not canon. Dr.Who (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The actor who played the character is infinitely more interesting than a CGI snake which had hardly any screentime, too.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Keeper of Traken Master.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Keeper of Traken Master.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)