Talk:The Master (Doctor Who)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Possible merger(s)

1)Master(FASA Roleplaying Game)1985 - FASA 9102 - ISBN 0-931787-94-7 "At that time, the Master was trying to alter Earth's history by ensuring Harold's victory over William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings...Nevertheless it took all the Doctor's skill to stop the renegade he then knew only as the Meddling Monk"

2)from Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon(ISBN 0-426-10372-6) by Malcolm Hulke (1974).

The Young Time Lord reminded him. ‘Humans on a planet refighting the wars of Earth’s history.’

‘Oh, yes. The Master used his stolen TARDIS to kidnap them and the Doctor found out. And he told us about it.'

'He gave away his position?'

'Well, the Doctor had done the best he could to stop it all. The Master put up quite a fight before he fled. But in the end we had to step in and get all those poor soldiers back to Earth, and to all the right times in Earth’s history.’

3)Terror of the Autons(1975)( ISBN 0-426-10639-3) by Terrance Dicks has more, but couldn't find a link. Will need to find book, and type it out.

4)The New Zealand version of Mastermind had a fellow with specialist subject "Doctor Who" in 1988. The only online link I could find was:http://nzdwfc.tetrap.com/archive/tsv8/mastermind.html (question 13). And it's Mastermind, a show respected for its accuracy.

137.158.153.203 (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge...You needed to add that you wish to merge Meddling Monk and The War Chief into the article Master (Doctor Who). I had to read through your edits to find that out. But I completely agree. It's pointless having three separate articles for one character. The way it reads now is just....wrong. The only Doctor Who character who should have separate articles for each incarnation is The Doctor himself! What is weird now is the current Master article DOES include different incarnations. Therefore it is pointless splitting off two of his incarnations into an article, and a section of another article. Merge 'em ASAP is my vote! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: The creation of the Master as a character has been well documented. It had nothing to do with the other characters. However, we can mention the above retroactive linking of the characters. DonQuixote (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Same person as two posts above....Remembered two Doctor Who Magazine articles, one in #91 featured an article about Malcolm Hulke where he mentiones that The War Chief=The Master. Hulke (co-)wrote The War Games(thus creating/introducing the War Chief), and also wrote Colony In Space, The Sea Devils and Frontier In Space(all key Master stories). Of course he wrote a LOT of other Doctor Who, but these are the ones are relevant here. Will need to find my copy... The other article is in #75(April '83). In an article promoting th then-soon-to-air Kings Demons comments are made such as: A seemingly friendly Sir Giles does appear to have a strange hold over his liege., A long time ago, didn't someone mention to me about jet liners is 1320 AD? And there was Shakespeare's Hamlet on television? "Sir Giles", of course, was revealed to be The Master (Doctor Who). The references to jet liners and Hamlet on television were of course made by the Meddling Monk in the Time Meddler, the serial where he keeps referring to his "master plan". My vote definitely remains "merge"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Hulke interview from DMW would be a great addition. However the other stuff you mention are synthesis. Also, see Jack Harkness and Face of Boe for something similar. DonQuixote (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The FASA Doctor Who Role Playing Game(an officially licensed Doctor Who product) explicitly states that The Monk is/was The Master. The Colony In Space(Doomsday Weapon) novelisation explicitly states that The War Chief is/was The Master. You could very well argue that it's a novelisation, and those often differ from the source material(eg. in Doomsday Weapon it has the Doctor and Jo meeting for the first time!). However, the aforementioned, and elusive, Hulke interview confirms The War Chief=The Master. If only I(or someone else) could find a copy of the thing. Thus we have Monk=Master and War Chief=Master. The only "synthesis" would be Monk=War Chief=Master, but that's not synthesis it's WP:COMMON SENSE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That's great! FASA is already mentioned, however Colony in Space isn't. Also, be aware that if you have to invoke "common sense", then it's synthesis (WP:NOCOMMON).

Anyway, the creation of the Master character is well documented, and it's described in this article. The retroactive linking of the characters is an interesting literary device which can also be described within the article. See Jack Harkness, Face of Boe, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't "invoke common sense". Perhaps it was just a misunderstanding of the way common sense works on wikipedia? You are really clutching at straws here. Basically, we have a WP:RS that The Monk=The Master. We have a WP:RS that The War Chief=The Master. using just those, a proper article can be written. It is thus obvious(and I'm NOT "invoking common sense") that both the Monk AND the War Chief are the Master. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Saying that it's "obvious" is still invoking "common sense". The point is that "common sense" isn't really a good argument for anything on its own (see paradox).

Anyway, go ahead and write that Hulke linked the Master with the War Chief. Also write that FASA linked the Master with the Monk. However, be aware that these are relatively obscure works and should be treated as such. See WP:Real world, Wold Newton family, Heracles, Hercules, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No. That is wrong. The officially licensed and fully endorsed FASA Role Playing Game unambiguously states that the Master is/was the Monk. It fully passes WP:RS and didn't contradict anything at the time of its release. Likewise, the Colony in Space novelisation was an official, licensed release, written by the co-writer of the War Games, and writer of several Delgado serials. It also didn't contradict anything. The OFFICIAL DOCTOR WHO MAGAZINE held an interview with the writer of the War Games where he stated that the War Chief=The Master. This definitely is a WP:RS. It's not "linking x with y". It is stating that they are, and always were, one and the same. In a WP:RS. And they certainly aren't "relatively obscure works". That is just something you are trying to throw up, rather than admit that you have no real grounds to oppose. It is all down to your personal preference. But this isn't really a vote as such. I have found a WP:RS that states unambiguously that the Meddling Monk and the Master are one and the same. If I could find the DWM, then there would be a WP:RS that states unambiguously that the War Chief and the Master are one and the same. See WP:V. And don't misinterpret that. It IS the truth, but it's truth that is ALSO verified. Just because you personally dislike the idea(for some reason) that Butterworth and Brayshaw were playing the same chracter as Delgado and Jacobi doesn't make it "real". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

In-universe, yes they're the same character. Out-of-universe, they're three separate characters that were retroactively linked, and they should be treated as such in an encyclopedia. Again, see Jack Harkness and Face of Boe. DonQuixote (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS that "they're three separate characters that were retroactively linked"? I doubt it. It's the SAME character, who some unfortunate people(like Gary Russell) later took to be three different characters. The Reliable Sources stating that it's the same Time Lord, just in different incarnations date from the time, and come from the horse's mouths. The idea that it's NOT the same Time lord is what comes MUCH later, and only then in non-television media. As with all Doctor Who spin-off media, its relationship to the televised serials is open to interpretation. Out-of-universe we have MALCOLM HULKE linking the War Chief and the Master. The novelisation of Terror of the Autons(by TERRANCE DICKS) also links the War Chief and The Master. Apparently there is an interview with Dicks from the 70's where he states that The War Chief=The Monk, but I have been unable to locate it(it may just be a story). However, we still have WP:RS stating that 1)Monk=Master and 2)War Chief=Master.

If you can show a reliable source that says that Terrance Dicks and Barry Lets didn't create the character out of whole cloth (albeit based on Moriarty) but as the War Chief in disguise, then go right ahead...otherwise, two separate characters. Same for the Monk.

As to Terror of the Autons...nothing in it that I can see, and even if there were, it was published in 1975 (retroactive). As for Doomsday Weapon, it was also published after the fact in 1974 (again, retroactive), and my copy doesn't have anything like what's quoted above. Besides, Hulke wasn't the creator of the Master, Dicks and Letts were. And FASA has already been written about (The Doctor Who Role Playing Game).

Again, in the real world, these characters were created, and then some time later, they were linked together...unless you can show otherwise, such as Letts and Dicks stating that they redressed the War Chief as the Master rather than what they have been saying which is that they created the Master to be the Doctor's Moriarty.

The bottom line, the primary concern should be about how the characters were created. Master=War Chief, yes in-universe. The Master created as a version of the War Chief way back in 1971 by Letts and Barry, probably not...and it's been described as such in the relevant articles. DonQuixote (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

a)Can you provide a WP:RS that says they DID "create the character out of whole cloth"? I've got WP:RS that state that The Master appeared before "Terror of the Autons", just under another name.

b)Terror of the Autons isn't the slamdunk. however the dialogue between the Doctor and the Time lord(with the bowler hat) states that The Doctor has recently encountered him, that "The Master" is a new name, that The Master is a "jackanapes" who "causes trouble", the word "meddling" is used, and The Master(a new name mind0 has "learnt a great deal since you last met him". And remember who wrote the novelisation of Terror of the Autons...Terrance Dicks who was still the Script Editor, and had co-written The War Games. As far as other books, I have no idea what copy you have, or even if you even do. But Malcolm Hulke(co-writer of The War Games) novelised Colony In Space(his own script) during the time when Dicks was still Script Editor. And of course at that itime Dicks was the main force behind the Target novelisations. Having Dicks AND Hulke equating the two at the time Dicks was Script Editor on the show is not just coincidence. And the FASA Game was a legally and officially licensed product, overseen at the time when Ian Levine was official continuity advisor(yes really).

No, these "characters" were NOT "created, and then some time later, linked together". Do you have a SINGLE WP:RS that backs up that statement?

Your "argument" rests on YOUR WP:OR assertion that probably not. However, all the evidence states that they are one and the same. You admit that there are WP:RS. However your guess that "probably not" supposedly trumps all the WP:RS? Even if it is agreed to keep two or three separate articles, it must be along the same lines as the First Doctor, Second Doctor etc. articles. ie. showing different incarnations of the same character, NOT separate characters. Because they are undoubtedly the same character. I must also say that I do not fully agree with your "out-of-universE" comment, as the FASA Game, and the still-elusive old DWM ARE "out-of-universe". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk • contribs)

For reliable sources...The Doctor's Moriarty from the Terror of the Autons DVD and Thirty Years in the TARDIS (off the top of my head).

I think you're missing the point, which is no one is saying that the Master cannot be the War Chief or the Monk. What's being said is that, from a real-world historical perspective, these three separate characters were created and then became one character. There is no need to arrange the article in an in-universe style. Again, see Jack Harkness and Face of Boe where these two characters were created as two separate characters and then became one character. DonQuixote (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, FASA etc. were written after the fact, so again historically that's where they became one character retroactively. DonQuixote (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, FASA and the novelisations are written in an in-universe style, which means that they're reliable sources for continuity and such. Articles (in DWM) and interviews are written in an out-of-universe style, which means that they're reliable sources for production, actors, character creation, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"The Doctor's Moriarty" DVD feature only came out a couple of years ago. Likewise "Thirty Years in the TARDIS" dates from 1993. Both of those are MANY years AFTER the Sources I listed. In addition, there is NO contemporaneous WP:RS stating that they were created separately. The sources closest to the actual time all state that they are one and the same. Both in-universe AND out-of-universe. In addition, having Terrance "Post-Warmonger" Dicks stating that "The Doctor needed a Mowiawty, who we cawled The Master" doesn't mean that it wasn't an existing villain, simply renamed. in fact, the dialogue between The Doctor and The Time Lord dressed like a city gent explicitly states that it's NOT a new villain, that The Doctor has recently run into him, and that 'The Master' is a new name. You could say that that isn't an airtight case that it's The War Chief, but there ain't any other Time Lords who fit that bill, from an in-universe OR an out-of-universe perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Barry Letts and Terrance Dicks created the character (can't get more contemporary than that). The sources you keep mentioned are in-universe sources. That means that within the continuity of the narrative, yeah, the Master is the War Chief. But in the real world, the out-of-universe sources say that these characters were created separately and later were linked by in-universe sources as being the same character. We can write about how the Master is the War Chief, etc., within the context of the real world events, which doesn't mean that we should treat these characters as having been created from the get go as one continuous character because that's not factual.

And as for your "doesn't mean that it wasn't an existing villain", the burden of proof is on you that that's what happened in the real world (thanks for providing the in-universe RS for the fictional world). Please try to keep the real world (out-of-universe) and fictional world (in-universe) separate. Again, in the real world three separate characters were created which were then linked retroactively by in-universe sources. In the fictional world of the narrative, these characters are all one character. DonQuixote (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Hulke interview would establish the out-of-universe fact. Anyway, this is going in circles. Me saying "these are WP:RS", you going "but that's not out-of-universe" and on and on. Is anyone else reading this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You can start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who. DonQuixote (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your user name is particularly apt, because this whole discussion is nothing but charging at windmills.Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Has this just fizzled out? We have a nomination for merger, then two votes, one (me) for yes, and one for no. And one comment talking about windmills. Both the proposer and I have supplied WP:RS, whereas, the "no" vote has talked about "out-of-universe perspective". So what can this realistically lead to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written in an out-of-universe style, so there's no real-world reason for the merger. From Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Relevant guidelines and policies, "Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about 'real-world' aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than 'in-universe' details." DonQuixote (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

So what? We can cover the real-world developments of the single character, while also mentioning his so-called "in-universe" appearances too. Your "argument" is meaningless. I have Sources, and your "counter" is an irrelevant Wikipedia rule about the way the article should be structured. Buy all means, if you wish to article to e more about the real-world aspects, fine. But that is hardly a reasonable reason to dispute the merger(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you haven't provided any realible source that says that it's a single character in the real world. Unless that's done, Letts and Dicks trumps you on reliability and authority, and that's where "Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about 'real-world' aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than 'in-universe' details" comes in. DonQuixote (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Haven't I? And how can something that doesn't exist trump anything else? And anyway, since you admit that there are WP:RS for "in-universe", we can then use whatever WP:RS "real world" are at hand to chart the "real world" aspects of the character, while referring to ALL the "in universe" aspects as well. Your "argument" is meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Letts and Dicks are real people who have given real interviews. They trump your "doesn't mean that it wasn't an existing villain". Again, "in-universe" sources are good for continuity and such. "Out-of-universe" sources, such as interviews, describe the creation of the character(s). Letts and Dicks have said that they created the Master based only on Moriarty. You can't go around rewriting real-world facts. And, again, no one has said that the Master cannot be the War Chief, and no one said that this cannot be mentioned, all that's being said is that Letts and Dicks created the character as they have been saying all along. DonQuixote (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And yet, both I an OP have provided. WP:RS. For all your bluster, you have yet to provide a single WP:RS that backs up anything you have claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Er...ok...The Doctor's Moriarty and Thirty Years in the TARDIS. Now, please provide a reliable source that says that Dicks and Letts created a version of the War Chief. Still waiting for that, actually. DonQuixote (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What specifically about those two? Otherwise, you could just say "BBC Enterprises" or "Doctor Who Magazine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

From above, "'Out-of-universe' sources, such as interviews, describe the creation of the character(s). Letts and Dicks have said that they created the Master based only on Moriarty." The Doctor's Moriarty specifically addresses this issue. DonQuixote (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

But what did they say specifically? You are either misinterpreting what I am saying or..... Do you have any specific quotes from The Doctor's Moriarty? Or is this another case of "Ooh! In the Time Meddler it is specifically stated that the Doctor and the Monk have never met before!" where no such dialogue actually exists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Lets and Dicks have stated that they created the Master based on Moriarty. That's it. That's what they say. They don't say anything else.

You're pushing to merge separate real-world articles into a single article. This is only justified if the characters were created as a single real-world character, which isn't the case. The burden of proof is on you to justify the merger of separate real-world articles, preferably by verifying that the Master was created as a version of the War Chief. If not, then they are separately created characters and should be treated as such in real-world articles. DonQuixote (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Lets[sic] and Dicks have stated that they created the Master based on Moriarty. That's it. That's what they say. They don't say anything else. Evidently, you haven't actually read the WP:RS page, have you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

How are The Doctor's Moriarty or Thirty Years in the TARDIS (to name just two such interviews) questionable as reliable sources? The burden of proof is still on you. DonQuixote (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The sources themselves aren't questionable. Do you have the specific statements, rather than vague comments like "Lets said that's all". Otherwise you're getting into Paul Cornell territory, making wild claims without stating specifically what you are referring to. In that case you could say(as a purely hypothetical example) that "In Thirty Years in the TARDIS it says that The Rani is Romana". Of course it doesn't, which is why we need what Let(t)s or Dicks actually said, not your claim that they said something. Is there a transcript at least? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, you haven't provided any reliable sources for your wild claim, but to humour you, from The Doctor's Moriarty...Letts: "There's no question that in our discussions, Terrance and I, about the relationship between the Doctor and the Brig being very like Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson, and that led inevitably towards 'Where is Moriarty?'"

From Life on Earth (on the same Terror of the Autons DVD)...

Letts: Terrance and I were discussing what we could find for the second season...something very new...and we were talking about the relationship between the Doctor and the Brigadier, and we felt...it was really rather like Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson.

Dicks: After one of these discussions came the thought that if he was like Sherlock Holmes, what he needed was a Moriarty...We kinda roughed out the beginnings of the character.

Etc. At no point do they mention the War Chief having any influence at all.

Regardless, the default WP:NPOV position for any character is that they are created as a separate character unless explictly stated otherwise. So, the burden of proof is still on you. DonQuixote (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I started this discussion. I have had difficulty getting to a computer since then. What we seem to have are WP:RS stating that "in-Universe"(whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) The Monk, The War Chief and The Master are all one and the same. I remember an interview with Dicks from decades ago where he stated that The War Chief was supposed to be The Monk, but I'll need to search for that. I remember that in Doctor Who Magazine Issue 91 there is a special feature on Malcom Hulke(writer of The War Chief, and writer of many Master episodes where he states(in an old interview) that they were the same character). Does anyone have a copy of that issue(DWM 91)? Then, there are things like the FASA Game, which is certainly not "in-Universe", but a guide to the "universe" of Doctor Who from outside. This states that The Master and The Monk are one and the same. Or the DWM #73 article which states that The Master is The Monk. I honestly don't see what the problem is, apart from one user's reluctance to accept that certainly they were always meant to be one and the same. 137.158.153.203 (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

FASA is written in-universe. It does not mention anything about production, cast, script-editing, etc. which are out-of-universe things. Wikipedia is written in an out-of-universe style, which means that we can describe the creation of the separate characters but we cannot say that they were created as one character without a reliable out-of-universe source. We can, however, mention that some in-universe sources, such as FASA, have linked these characters together. Please do not confuse the world of fiction with the world of reality.

Also, DWM #73 contain articles on The Myth Makers and the then current season 18. DWM #91 features an article on Malcolm Hulke and his contributions to the programme, which includes a mention of The War Games and the War Chief. It also includes his work on Frontier in Space which features the Master. And that's it. Nothing else is said.

But again, all this is irrelavent since there is no documentation that the creation of the Master was influenced in the real world by the War Chief or the Monk. This takes place in the real world. That's what's meant by out-of-universe. The linking of the Master with the Monk occurs in the fictional work of the FASA Doctor Who Roleplaying Game. This takes place in the fictional world created by FASA. That's what's meant by in-universe.

Please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction as this goes into great detail. DonQuixote (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and about "they were always meant to be one and the same", you haven't shown any reliable sources to back up your claim. It has also been debunked by the above quoted Letts and Dicks interviews. DonQuixote (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the way thw article is written right now doesn't exactly follow that line of reasoning, does it? It's about 90%+ "in-universe", and a couple of lines under "Origin", with only one Source(with no specifics given). We DO know, for instance, that in "Colony In Space"/"The Doomsday weapon"(written by The War Games author Malcolm Hulke) it is explicitly stated that only two TARDISes have ever been stolen, one by "The Doctor" and one by a Time lord who now calls himself "The Master", and was involved in a scheme to gather soldiers from various periods in earth's history, before The Doctor tipped off the Time Lords. But I guess you'll say that's "in-universe". And the DWM which you say doesn't contain any Monk/Master information is not true. It does. Therefore, we can't take your word on the Malolm Hulke article. Or the Terrance Dicks quote. Dicks said they wanted a chracetr to be The Doctor's Moriarty, and that he should be known as The master. They never said explicitly that it was The Monk/The war Chief, but likewise they never even hinted at the fact that it was a new character either. From DWM(promoting the then-forthcoming "King's Demons")...

Perhaps it is that the beloved TARDIS, that has a mind of her own, that is responsible for yet another trip to Earth. Maybe. Or then again, as the Ship materializes in 13th Century England does the Doctor have plans to visit his old friend, Edward of Wessex. One thing that becomes apparent very early on is, as per usual, events do not proceed as planned. The Doctor, Tegan and Turlough find themselves at a colourful pageant where, guess who, gets embroiled in the inimical world of jousting. A seemingly friendly Sir Giles does appear to have a strange hold over his liege. Being her world Tegan is the only one to sense that the whole scenario has a wrong feel to it. With nothing tangible to substaniate her feelings, she keeps her thoughts to herself. Eventually, adding fuel to the rapidly building fire, the Doctor meets a very confused Sir Geoggrey de Lacey. He had just travelled directly down from London and an audience with King John! Deep within the Doctor's mind a memory stirs. Thirteen century. "This is the time of Magna Carta, isn't it?" He searches the inner recesses of his memory for the illusive information. A long time ago, didn't someone mention to me about jet liners is 1320 AD? And there was Shakespeare's Hamlet on television?" Just a muddled memory is there a grain of truth trying to breath through. A truth with devious implications! The King's Demons, serial coded 6J, is penned by the now Doctor Who regular, Terence Dudley. Terence was also responsible for Four to Doomsday, Black Orchid and A Girl's Best Friend. Directing The King's Demons, a two parter and the last of the twentieth season, is Tony Virgo.

But I guess you'd say that that's "in-universe"! 137.158.153.203 (talk) 08:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"Well, the way thw article is written right now doesn't exactly follow that line of reasoning, does it?"

That does not mean that we should continue along that line. Review Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, and sorry, my copy of Doomsday Weapon doesn't say anything like what you're saying.

"And the DWM which you say doesn't contain any Monk/Master information is not true. It does."

I assume you mean DWM #73. So what, if anything, does it say? Please refer to the appropriate page so that I, and anyone else who wishes to, can fact check it.

"Therefore, we can't take your word on the Malolm Hulke article."

So...look up the article and fact check me. Simple as that, really.

"Or the Terrance Dicks quote."

...or fact check me by viewing the documentaries.

"They never said explicitly that it was The Monk/The war Chief, but likewise they never even hinted at the fact that it was a new character either."

The burden of proof is on you. Unless you can show that it was the Monk/War Chief, the claim is baseless. To illustrate the point by using an extreme example, person X never said that he was never a mass murderer. The way it works is that the person making the claim has to affirm it rather than forcing other people (such as person X, or Letts and Dicks) to deny it.

As for DWM #75, which you quote, thanks for your interpretation, but that falls under original research. Also, even if it were shown to be something that directly links the Master to the Monk, the connection wasn't made until 1983, the date of publication of the magazine, and not "always".

The bottom line is: please provide a reliable source that says that "they were always meant to be one and the same". DonQuixote (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Er, that's not Original Research. DWm(sorry wrong issue) stated unambiguously that The Monk=The Master. The Doctor Who Role Playing Game(and it's not "in-universE", it's an overview of the "universe") stated unambiguosuly that The Meddling Monk=The Master. Malcolm Hulke's and Terrance Dicks' 70's novelisations(ok, both ARE "in-universe") unambiguously state that The War Chief=The Master. There were also the elusive 70's Dicks interview(The Monk=The War Chief), and the elusive Hulke interview(The War Chief=The Master). Your rsponse is that none of this counts, as it's all "in-universe"(although nearly the entire article is "in-universe"), and one interview from the 1990's where Dicks and Letts say that they wanted The Master to be the Moriarty to The Doctor's Holmes(but nothing about the "Origins" of the character, and certainly not that they created a new character). If you consider that "Original Research", then maybe you'd be better off at the Simple English Wiki? 137.158.153.203 (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

So...find a source (that's not from the 1990s, presumably) that says that "they were always meant to be one and the same".

And FASA's Doctor Who Roleplaying Game is a game. The mechanics of the game are out-of-universe real world things. The world that the game describes, in an in-universe prose, is a fictional universe. And my response is to say, go review Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, which is a guideline that summarises the consensus of a lot of wikipedia editors.

And as for "Origins"...the burden of proof is still on you. So, find a source that says that "they were always meant to be one and the same". The "elusive" Dicks and Hulke interviews would be nice. Please go find them. As for "created", requoting from above, "We kinda roughed out the beginnings of the character" (emphasis mine).

Finally, interpretation always leads to original research. So, instead of the above thing you quoted, you can quote the issue of DWM that unambiguously states "that The Monk=The Master". DonQuixote (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't act like a moron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, don't. So please cite a reliable source that says that "they were always meant to be one and the same", or words to that effect. DonQuixote (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. That was actually a reference to the kind of fellow who thinks it takes WP:OR to interpret what people are saying right out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it wasn't said "right out" but had to be inferred makes it original research. So, I make the same challenge to you, quote the issue of DWM that unambiguously states "that The Monk=The Master". DonQuixote (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

How does that not qualify as being said right out? 41.133.0.68 (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

In the above quote of DWM #75, there is no "Master" or "Monk". These words had to be inferred.

Anyway, the issue has been nicely summarised as "they were always meant to be one and the same". Please find a reliable source that supports this. DonQuixote (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

But that is assuming he was ever called "The Monk". He was "The Monk" in the same way he was "The Telephone Man" or "The Scarecrow". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

But the point remains that you have had to have watched the episodes prior to reading the above to make the connection. That's still original reasearch. DonQuixote (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

New to the conversation, but i'd like to add that i think that any reference to the Monk and the Doctor having never previously met prior to 1066 should be removed, seeing as there is absolutely no materials that state that. In fact there are licensed materials which say quite clearly that they have met before i.e The Time Meddler novelisation. Not that i am at all implying that these are definitive canon, there's just simply no evidence for them being strangers. 86.31.163.48 (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, i'd like to vote yes on a CONDITIONAL merger. One where the War Chief and the Monk are held in a seperate subsection within The Master page, listing the various sources that both support and reject the possibility that they are both early incarnations of the Master. 86.31.163.48 (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to edit out that the Monk and the Doctor never met as that's not supported by any reliable source and is an intepretation of the episodes in which they appear.

As to the War Chief and the Monk being mentioned in a subsection on this page, go right ahead. There is nothing that says that you can't do that as long as reliable sources are cited, but we don't have to merge the already existing articles to do that. It's not really an either-or thing. DonQuixote (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Basically it boils down to this, there is enough reliable sources to write about how the characters have been linked in various fictional works (in-universe sources). There is not any reliable source presented as yet that says that they were always meant to be one character, so there is no real-world justification for a merger of three separately created characters. DonQuixote (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, "in-universe", there's more fun from the novelisations, in this case of the War Games: The War Chief took the Doctor into his private office just off the war room and told his bodyguards to leave. ‘Now,’ he said, ‘a traveller in a time-space machine. There is only one person you can be.’

Shouldn't there be THREE other people he could be? The Doctor or The Master or The Monk? Unless two of those three are already there.

From Terror of the Autons: Last time they had met was at the Doctor’s trial. After many years of happily wandering around the universe in his ‘borrowed’ TARDIS, the Doctor had been captured at last by his own people, and condemned to exile on the planet Earth for an indefinite period.

A hope flashed into the Doctor’s mind. ‘You’ve come to tell me the exile is over...’ The Time Lord shook his head. ‘I’m afraid not, Doctor. As a matter of fact, I’ve come to bring you a warning, An old friend of yours has arrived on Earth.’ ‘One of our people? Who is it?’ The Time Lord pronounced a string of mellifluous syllables—one of the strange Time Lord names that are never disclosed to outsiders. Then he added, ‘These days he calls himself the Master.’ The Doctor was silent for a moment. The Master was a rogue Time Lord. So too was the Doctor, in a way. But all his interventions in the course of history were on the side of good. The Master intervened only to cause death and suffering, usually in the pursuit of some scheme to seize power for himself. More than that, he seemed to delight in chaos and destruction for its own sake, and liked nothing more than to make a bad situation worse, Already he had been behind several Interplanetary Wars, always disappearing from the scene before he could be brought to justice. If ever he were caught, his fate would I be far worse than the Doctor’s exile. Once captured by the Time Lords, the Master’s life-stream would be thrown into reveese. Not only would he no longer exist, he would never have existed. It was the severest punishment in the Time Lords’ power. The Doctor knew that the Master’s presence on earth made matters far worse than he had feared. ‘You’re sure he’s here?’ he asked. The Time Lord nodded gravely. ‘We tracked him on the Monitor. Then there was some kind of alien interference and we lost contact.’ ‘Is his TARDIS still working?’ ‘I’m afraid so. He got away before it could be deenergised.’ 41.133.0.68 (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The bigger joke is you are going on about "in-universe", yet virtually the entire article is "in-universe"! And the only reason NOT to have a single article is "in-universe" media produced by companies other than the BBC. 41.133.0.68 (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for all those in-universe sources, feel free to write about them in this article and the other two articles. As for "yet virtually the entire article is 'in-universe'", that's why this article has been given a C rating in the fictional characters project. There is room for improvement in writing this article in a more out-of-universe tone. And the real reason not to have a single article is that it hasn't been shown that "they were always meant to be one and the same". Regards, DonQuixote (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The points are: a)Since the article is almost entirely in-universe, in-universe sources linking them are certainly no worse than the ones currently used. in fact they must count as superior to say the mention of Jonathan Pryce's Master, thee Sympathy For The Devil Master, or the Shalka android Master. b)If everyone was originally writing them in-universe as the same character, there must be a reason. This includes Terrance Dicks, who co-wrote the War Games, novelised Autons, and was Script Editor for the duration of the Delgado era. The only traces of a real world idea that they weren't the same character come from decades after the event, and are not even conclusive, as you yourself have admitted.

Thus, we have substantial in-universe sources from the time linking them, and NO real world sources from the time considering them to be different. The only in-universe sources which consider them different come from decades later, are hopelessly self-contradictory, and none of these are even produced by the BBC. What you have described as real world sources signifying them as different are likewise decades after the event, and don't even state that they are different! Thus the article is essentially an in-universe, rated "C" article. The original in-universe sources that are contemporaneous all point to a single character. The in-universe sources that point to them as different are all MANY MANY years after the event, and can't even keep their facts straight! Eg, Did The Monk first meet the Doctor in 1066 or where they at the Academy together? Or for that matter, what happened to the Master between Survival and The TV Movie, or between The TV Movie and Utopia?

In conclusion, since this is essentially an in-universe article, I would state that it would be preferable to go with in-universe that is contemporaneous with the times the character appeared on screen. And the in-universe that is consistent, and logical, rather than a hopeless mess. Of course, WP:RS from the real world are still greatly desired, but as things stand now, there are no real world WP:RS either way/. In-universe however, everything coherent and contemporaneous points to one character. Thus, the answer is to merge the articles, but don't raise it above C without that real world WP:RS. 41.133.0.68 (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

First, for your quote and analysis of War Games, " Shouldn't there be THREE other people he could be? The Doctor or The Master or The Monk? Unless two of those three are already there." That's original research. That's your interpretation that they should be the same character. Please cite an out-of-universe reliable source so that we can verify this interpretation. Second, for your quote of Terror of the Autons, there is no mention of the War Chief or of the Monk. So neither of these are "superior" or "substantial", and thus not even contemporary.

As for this being an in-universe article, the goal of wikipedia is to make all such articles more out-of-universe, so continuing along that line is non-constructive. Please review WP:writing about fiction. DonQuixote (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

First, I 100% agree that the article needs a lot(well ANY) WP:RS from a real world/out-of-universe perspective, because as it stands now it has none. All we have are in-universe narratives, and a couple of real world comments that have no real source.

Now as for as your comments about WP:OR. Let's see. There are two renegade Time Lords. The Doctor has confrontations with "The Monk", The War Chief and The Master. "The Monk" was never a monk, just disguised as one, and he's not the Doctor. The War Chief was just a job title, and he's not the Doctor. The Master has only recently taken the name the Master, and he's not the Doctor. Whenever "The Monk", The War Chief or The Master here of another Time Lord, they immediately know that it 'must be The Doctor, as he's the only other renegade Time Lord besides "them". That is not WP:OR! That is clear fact.

Unless you say "Oh. But they never specifically say 'The Master'". But that is in-universe, and using that reasoning the article as it stands now would unravel. Does it ever state that Professor Yana's Master is the same as the Pratt master or the Bruce Master? And if not, then linking them is WP:OR. If it's because they're both called "The Master", then what about the guy from 'The Mind Robber'? 41.133.0.68 (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling out your analysis step-by-step. But, again, analysing anything is original research. And reviewing the things you quoted...where does it say that there are only two renegade Time Lords?

As for Yana and Pratt and Bruce, they have been confirmed by out-of-universe reliable sources so we don't have to link them ourselves. So no OR on those. DonQuixote (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

What sources?

Anyway, it's not analysis. If you honestly believe that's it's analysis then, well I can't continue that sentence without being offensive. In "Doomsday" it states that only two TARDISes have ever been stolen, one by the Doctor, and one who now calls himself the Master. Interestingly the Meddling Monk article states that 'The Monk was the possessor of a stolen Mark IV TARDIS'(and no I never edited it that way, it's always been like that). In The War Games when the War Chief learns that a space-time traveller has arrived, he immediately knows it must be the Doctor. ‘Now,’ he said, ‘a traveller in a time-space machine. There is only one person you can be.’ That's not "analysis". That's a simply statement of fact. If you honestly believe it takes analysis or WP:RS to understand that, then I feel sorry for you(sorry it was unavoidable). I have also rewatched the "Doctor's Moriarty" bit. All Dicks says is that they wanted a Moriarty to the Doctor's Holmes, that they wanted Roger Delgado for the role, and that Dicks/Letts decided to call him "The Master". They don't state that they created a new character. They do mention working on the Master's character traits, quirks etc. But that's the same way that Colin Baker talks about working on the character of the Sixth Doctor, to differentiate him from Davison's Fifth Doctor. So yes, Dicks/Letts did come up with the name "The Master", they wanted Delgado, and they helped with The Delgado Master's personal traits. But at no stage do they mention that it was a brand new character that had never appeared before. Going by Dicks' own novelisation of Autons, it's clear(and not through analysis or OR) that it's the War Chief. 41.133.0.68 (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"What sources?"...press releases (or junkets)...the press, such as the Guardian and DWM...the DVDs, especially the documentaries on them...the programme guide...BBC Online. I can be more specific if you want, but I'm not at home at the moment so I don't have access to them.

As for Doomsday, etc., please review WP:synthesis. If you have to go through all those steps, then it's analysis. To be more specific, saying "There is only one person you can be" means that it has to be (insert name here), then it's your interpretation and analysis, which is original research.

"All Dicks says is that they wanted a Moriarty to the Doctor's Holmes, that they wanted Roger Delgado for the role, and that Dicks/Letts decided to call him 'The Master'". Yes, which means you can't put words into their mouths, such as that they redressed the War Chief. The burden of proof is still on you (you can't force people to deny your claims, you have to prove them). So...please find a reliable source that says anything close to "they were always meant to be one and the same". DonQuixote (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not synthesis. From The Sea Devils:

‘It would be difficult for you to understand,’ said the Master, ‘but my TARDIS is my proudest possession.’ The Doctor laughed. ‘You don’t even own it! You stole it from the Time Lords!’ ‘As you stole yours!’ retorted the Master. ‘Now please, let’s not start to get all moral. I’m not going to render up my TARDIS to anyone.’

or

‘Hundreds of years ago, when we were both young Time Lords, we were inseparable. After all, we had a lot in common.’ ‘What, for instance?’ He turned to her. ‘You know the Golden Rule of the Time Lords—just to sit and watch, but never actually do anything? He and I are different. We wanted to get out into the Universe, to meet other species, to explore.’ ‘One for good and the other for evil?’ said Jo. ‘Yes, you could say that.’

See now to anyone that would be it. Finished. Checkmate. Case closed. However, for what is clearly your POV reasons, you won't accept it. And even if I were supposedly putting words into Dicks' and Letts' mouths, what are you doing by saying that it's a wholly new character? Why, putting words into their mouths of course. So why should the words you are putting into their mouths be acceptable? 41.133.0.68 (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

What would be it? Nothing in what you quoted says anything apart from the Doctor and the Master knew each other hundreds of years ago and that they both stole TARDISes and went out into the universe. Adding anything else is original research, especially if you combine this with a quote from some other thing, which is synthesis.

And...Dicks: "We kinda roughed out the beginnings of the character."

DonQuixote (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The article as it stands now is without any real-world, out-of-universe WP:RS that supports the idea you are presenting. In addition "We kinda roughed out the beginnings of the character"m requires tremendous WP:OR and analysis and synthesis on your part. According to wiktionary.com "kinda" means 'kind of, somewhat', thefreedictionary has "roughed out" as "outline". But the key is "the beginnings of the character". Ie. the idea that the Doctor and the master were at school together, had been friends etc. There is less than nothing in that that suggests it's a new character. All they did was create the basic outline of the Master's youth, which had never been referred to before. Your using that speaks volumes about your accusations of synthesis, analysis and OR.41.133.0.68 (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok...I'll concede that point because it's rather irrelevant to what you're saying. So Letts and Dicks didn't create the Master out of whole clothe, but we do know, and have reliable sources to support, that they based the Master on Moriarty. Now...please provide a reliable source that they based it on the War Chief...or the Monk...or words to that effect. DonQuixote (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Er. Based the Master on the War Chief or The Monk? Surely the Dicks piece above explains that. But then I could find a WP:RS that states that JNT and Colin Baker based the Sixth Doctor on Mr Darcy out of pride and prejudice. Could you find a source, for example, that Jon Pertwee based his Doctor on Patrick Troughton's Doctor, or that Lalla Ward based her Romana on Mary Tamm's Romana? Of course you couldn't. But that doesn't mean anything the way you are implying it does. And what Dicks and Letts stated was that they wanted someone to fit the Moriarty role in Doctor Who, not a character who was based on Moriarty. In fact, I could find several sources stating that the Monk effectively filled that role to the First doctor, though admittedly none of them from the production team at the time.41.133.0.68 (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And that's the point...you can't verify your claim. From just below the edit box: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." So please find a reliable source that can verify your claim.

As for Romana, etc...these have been well documented, so your wild rant is pointless.DonQuixote (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wild rant? All your "source" stated was that Dicks and Letts decided that The Doctor should have a regular villain in the series that should be have a Holmes-Moriarty dynamic with the Doctor. They came up with the name "The Master"(and Dicks himself wrote that "these days he calls himself 'The Master'), indicating that that's a new name that The Doctor wouldn't have encountered before, although The Doctor certainly knew the Time Lord, just not by that name. They also decided that this returning character now going by the name of The Master should have been at school with The Doctor. And that's it. That's your source. My so-called "wild rant" was pointing out the ridiculous flaw in your idea that coming up with a Moriarty-Holmes dynamic was equal to them saying they'd created a new character. By all accounts they renamed and gave a backstory to an existing character. 41.133.0.68 (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source that says that "By all accounts they renamed and gave a backstory to an existing character." DonQuixote (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge Official licensed material originally stated that all three characters were the same individual. That's enough for inclusion, though the controversy and spin-off retcon surrounding this should be clearly stated. From a strictly personal perspective regarding the War Chief/Master argument, it seems to have a pretty cut and dried source. The BBC pays creator royalties. The War Chief was co-created by two people. One of those people went on to create the Master. By claiming the Master as an original creation he receives 100% of the royalties. His co-creator claims the Master is the War Chief - which makes a large degree of sense given that the two characters are virtually identical in terms of M.O. and basic physical appearance. It should also be noted that the "War Chief" is clearly just the title this time lord holds with the alien culture he is working with. It is not a name of his own personal choosing. So again, I support a merger.76.126.161.133 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, now please cite a reliable source, or sources, that verifies everything everything anything that you said.

DonQuixote (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Why would I need to source my personal opinions? That's why I prefaced my statement as such. Let me be clear since you seem to have misunderstood - It is not because of my aforementioned personal opinions that I believe the articles should be merged. I believe they should be merged because official licensed material connected the characters quite clearly (and that has already been well documented). I also believe that the controversy should be clearly covered in the article.76.126.161.133 (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And that's the crux of the matter. It's your personal opinion that the Master was created as a version of the War Chief. That kind of merger requires a reliable source, and not personal opinion, to verify it. As for the controversy, it's already mentioned in the appropriate places and does not require a merger of the respective articles.

Also, meant to say "anything". DonQuixote (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll say it again - do not believe anything in my personal opinion is justification of inclusion and did not offer it up as such. it was simply conversational. Please stop addressing it as if it were otherwise.I already know that my personal opinions do not constitute a verifiable or reliable source. Separate from the specific personal opinions you are referring to, I believe the article is better served by a merger. Unless I am mistaken, there already is enough licensed material in existence (that has already been sourced) to allow the material to be merged - with the caveat that it is held under a subsection explaining the conflicting information. As such, I have posted my support. You don't have to agree. That's why you have previously posted that you do not support the merge.76.126.161.133 (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This article would better served if it were factually correct. Merging the articles would imply that the Master was created as a version of the War Chief. This cannot be done until a reliable source verifying this is provided. As the only thing we have thus far is your personal opinion, there is nothing to support the merger of the articles.

Also, as for licensed material, there is licensed material that says that Superman's ship landed in Britain (Superman: True Brit) or in Russia (Superman: Red Son), but that does not mean that was Shushter's and Siegel's intention, and it is treated as such in the relevant Superman articles. Similarly, although there are licensed material that make the connection that the Master is the War Chief (Time's Champion) or the Monk (FASA), that does not mean that that's what Letts and Dicks meant, and thus it should be treated as such in the relevant articles. So, please cite a reliable source that says that that's what they meant and the relevant articles will be merged accordingly, otherwise they won't. DonQuixote (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It is your assumption that such an implication would be made. I believe that the article can be written clearly enough that such inferences are unlikely. The characters have been connected. The War Chief on his own does not warrant his own page, but his official connection to the Master makes his inclusion as a subsection in the Master page reasonable.

In regards to licensed material: Those were published under the DC: Elseworlds imprint. They were presented clearly as an alternate version of the characters history (which was the stated goal of the imprint in question). Consequently those are terrible examples. Though interestingly, the Elseworlds material is given a section in the Superman article and the versions you mention are included in the Alternate versions of Superman article.

So we are left with licensed material that did directly connect the characters - enough so to warrant merger (with caveats). Those stand as reliable sources. You are welcome to disagree, but I do not believe you are not the final arbiter in what will or will not happen here.76.126.161.133 (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok...nothing has been said about not including anything about the War Chief in this article. Descriptions of in-universe connections are fine. However, merging the articles is unnecessary given that no real-world connections have been made. Perhaps I was a little hasty when I used examples that immediately leapt to mind rather than finding examples that were exactly similar, but the point was that licensed material doesn't affect real-world events. Licensed materials that connect two characters (or provide alternative interpretations of characters) don't affect how the characters were created. Letts and Dicks have gone on record as saying that they based the Master on Moriarty (Life on Earth on the Terror of the Autons DVD). Nowhere do they mention that he was based on the War Chief. If you can provide a reliable source that says that they did, then that'll be great and it'll be enough support for a real-world merger of real-world articles.

And, no I'm not the final arbiter, and if you check the edit histories of the respective articles, the most I've done is to tag things with template:cn. But the point is that you need reliable sources that support your assertion to get the ball rolling. DonQuixote (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, merger isn't even the best way to describe things since the War Chief has no current article - just a paragraph in Doctor Who enemies article. I'm not saying we should suggest that the two are literally the same character as intended by the creators of said characters, but that the War Chief section that currently exists would function well, more or less as is (with some mention of the licensed connections and subsequent contradictions) by being included as a subset of the Master article. It just seems tidier from an encyclopedic point of view as the War Chief is a related character (In that he has been connected as the same character in some licensed material). As for the "based on Moriarty" bit... They didn't actually say the Master was based on Moriarty I think? - Merely that they needed a villain that could serve in a similar role. As they used it, it's just a shorthand way for saying the Doctor needed an "arch-nemesis". Personally, I have no doubt Moriarty was a springboard, but that's supposition as much as is the connection between the Master and the War Chief. The difference being the licensed material. Now, I don't think we're to far off from being on the same page here. I'm not advocating drawing a direct line and making claims of fact, or even on reporting the flimsier connections some have endorsed. However, when it comes to licensed material off a corporate or government owned product, we don't have to wrap things up neatly with intent from original creators. If we did, the aforementioned Superman articles would perhaps look very different, as might Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles articles. Licensed material has often been absorbed into canon.

The flip side being the licensed material that contradicts. And I admit that is a bit of a thorn in the concept. Again, my primary reason is one for conciseness. The character has been connected closely enough that there is strong reason for a subsection reporting on this. Not stating that the characters are the same, but reporting on the connections. I do not believe the War Chief needs reporting in two places, and from an encyclopedic point of view is better served bundled with the related material than buried in the enemies list. This is why I support a "merge".76.126.161.133 (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, then, that's not really a merger. It's fine to write about the War Chief here and how in some material he's equated with the Master. The point is that the articles themselves don't need to be merged into one article. DonQuixote (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I just don't feel there is enough notability or material to warrant inclusion in two articles. That's probably where our opinions continue to clash, but that is basically why I support merge.76.126.161.133 (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That's why the War Chief is in List of Doctor Who villains. There's not enough real-world information for him to have his own article. But also, unless shown otherwise, he and the Master weren't originally meant to be the same character, so that's why his entry in the list shouldn't be physically merged with this article. However, that does not mean that there should be no mention of the connection made by various media in this article or in the other one. Feel free to do that. DonQuixote (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, the main thing holding me back is where in the article/how to label a section. I certainly don't want to do "alternative versions".76.126.161.133 (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: I agree with all of DonQuixote's arguments. Esprix (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose for all the reasons outlined by DonQuixote. Tom Wake (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: regardless of whether author intent can be proven, there's no explicit on-screen indication these are the same character. KingAndy (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(Though agree that the suggestion of such in spin-off media, and indeed the dispute over original intent, should be noted in one or possibly both articles. KingAndy (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC) )

Strongly Oppose: Most viewers of the series will agree with KingAndy: as every Wikipedia article states, the canonicity of spin-off media is by definition doubtful--no matter who the authors are. Of course they are interesting in the same way the apocryphal Gospels are interesting--but they are not the Synoptic Gospels accepted by Christians and are therefore not included in the Bible. This argument should never have gone on for as long as it did. DonQuixote is to be commended for his patience. The anonymous merger proponent went off the more than once. I can't believe I read most of it. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC) (UTC)