Talk:The Master (Doctor Who)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"The Doctor's Moriarty"

...has NOTHING in it that states that Dicks and Letts created a new character. User:DonQuixote lied. All they state is that The Doctor was Holmes to The Master's Moriarty. That's it. NOTHING about "creating" or "introducing" a character. That is NOT an appropriate RS as it does NOT state what User:DonQuixote claims it does. User:DonQuixote do you have any RS that actually state that Dicks/Letts created a new character? Or are you going to fabricate what was supposedly said in an interview? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.16.213 (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

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."

Also, at no point do they mention the War Chief or the Monk, which is more to the point. Frankly, it really doesn't matter if they created a new character or not, it just matters if the Master and the War Chief (or the Monk) are related in any way whatsoever. So, please cite a source that says that the the Master and the War Chief (and/or the Monk) have any relation production/creation-wise. The burden of proof is still on you. DonQuixote (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Can the spin off media in the 'War Chief' article remain there this time? Or is there a reason why it isn't relevant? 86.29.49.245 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick question for DonQuixote: What is the earliest reference you can find of Dicks saying "Bawwy shed to me je Doctor needs a Mowiawty?" I have searched and searched old magazines, newspapers etc. and can find nothing of the sort that is contemporaneous with Dicks' time as Script Editor. It does appear that this whole "Doctor's Moriarty" thing was created years after the event. It's similar to the so-called Cartmel Masterplan in that there is NO actual evidence that such a "masterplan" ever actually existed while Cartmel was Script Editor, but it was later worked into the revised history of Doctor Who thanks to....the Virgin Novels!(Sound familiar?) If you spoke to any Doctor Who fan in the 70's or 80's, the idea that Brayshaw, Butterworth and Delgado had been playing 3 separate Time Lords would have been mercilessly ridiculed. There is nothing in the tv show that shows that these VNA/VMA are considered "canon", in fact RTD showed clearly they can not exist in the same continuity(looms?), and had the Simm master call himself Harold Saxon, have him dress like this [1], and talk about his "call to war" etc. But the original question is:what is the earliest interview you, or anyone else, can find where Dicks talks about creating a new character?(you suggested 1993, which makes perfect sense)41.133.0.18 (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A quick search results in Doctor Who Magazine #52 p21 (cover date May 1981).

This was the story which introduced Roger Delgado as the Master. Very early on in the planning of this season Terrance and I had talked of giving the Doctor a "Moriarty" -- like Sherlock Holmes's perpetual adversary. As soon as we thought of the charcter I knew who I wanted to play it.

DonQuixote (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't state that they came up with a new character. "As soon as we thought of the character" is ambiguous at best too. Perhaps I phrased the original question incorrectly. It wasn't for the specific phrase "Doctor' Moriarty". it was the earliest interview where Dicks stated that they were creating a new character. 41.133.0.18 (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you. The default position is that they created a new character. You're asserting that they didn't but rather redressed the War Chief or the Monk or whomever. You have to affirm your position rather than expecting other people to deny it. So please, find a reliable source that says that the creation of the Master had anything to do with the War Chief or the Monk. If you can find such a thing, I'd be very happy that you found one and rejoice to no end. DonQuixote (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

But you have no WP:RS that they created a new character! So why should that be the "default position"? simply because whoever created the Meddling Monk and The War Chief paragraphs considered them to be different! But obviously they would! If the article had been created correctly then the burden of proof would be on you! What we are trying to do here is improve the article. Now we have mountains of WP:RS stating that it's not three separate characters. Your responses have been to say "Oh, but that's in-universe"(whatever that is supposed to mean...), give some ambiguous and uncertain quotes, and state "the burden of proof is on you!" But you yourself haven't proved a thing, "in-universe" or not. 41.133.0.18 (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If there are "mountains of WP:RS stating that it's not three separate characters", then please provide one. DonQuixote (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's one on this talk page:

)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" 41.133.0.18 (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

...Actually deeper investigation reveals this specific quote comes from the Doctor Who Role Playing Game (ISBN:978-0931787904). Book 2 of 3. On page 17. What is notable is that this is not an "in-universe" book. Rather it is a real-world look at the world of Doctor Who! Of course it is entirely possible(and probable) that the above quote is also in the Master book. In fact, there are 2 Master books, but I am unable to get hold of a copy of either. 41.133.0.18 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

To use your own argument against you, that says nothing about how Letts and Dicks created the character of the Master, new or otherwise. Also, that was way after 1971 (a la Cartmel Master Plan). Sorry, try again. DonQuixote (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

But it's something you don't have. A clear, unambiguous, real-world WP:RS. You have nothing of the sort that states the opposite.

And, if you admit that any "creation" tales yet unearthed are vague and ambiguous at best, why should YOUR position be the default one? 41.133.0.18 (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's not clear or unambiguous as you claim. The FASA role-playing game says nothing about the creation of the Master and is on the same level as the VNA/VMA of which you say "There is nothing in the tv show that shows that these VNA/VMA are considered 'canon'". So to use your argument against you again, there is nothing in the TV show that shows that this roleplaying game is considered canon. DonQuixote (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't need to say anything about the creation of The Master, as a)it's not "in-universe" while the VNA/VMA ARE "in-universe" and b)you have yet to provide any real-world WP:RS that state otherwise. You are clutching at straws. 41.133.0.18 (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It is in-universe precisely because it says nothing about the production of the show. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Real-world perspective. So, nope, I'm not the one clutching at straws here. Please provide a reliable source describing the creation of the Master character in which the War Chief or the Monk are any way involved. Again, you have to affirm that there was such a connection during the creation process rather than expecting others to deny it...much in the same way that I have to affirm that you're Paul Neil Milne Johnstone rather than expecting you to deny it. (That's what's meant by "default position".) DonQuixote (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

As argued in the section above, I'm in favor of a merge (or pseudo-merge) myself. But facts are what facts are, and DonQuixote is quite right in his arguments here. Wikipedia works the way it works. While the link between the Master and the War Chief may be one apparent by common sense, that isn't criteria substantial enough to warrant a connection. However, the middle ground here seems to be a reporting of the connection (and conflict) made by licensed material. After that, readers can draw their own conclusions based on the presentable facts - slim as they may be.76.126.161.133 (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thought i might mention that i have added a section in the Master article, briefly detailing the contents of the two modules by FASA, if it needs altering in anyway i can do so as i own both modules. Or if it is unsatisfactory it can be deleted. I was thinking of adding the dedication in the front of the first module which reads-

Dedicated to the memory of Roger Delgado, who made the renegade Time Lord come to life, and to Anthony Ainley, Peter Pratt, Geoffrey Beevers and Peter Butterworth, who added luster to the legend.

-but i didn't think it had too much relevance. It's worth mentioning here though, pretty much sums up FASA's feelings, but they do make it quite clear that the War Chief is just an ally of the Master.

86.29.241.193 (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on anyone who wants to claim they're the same character, just as much as if anyone wanted to claim any other characters were the "same." Dr.Who (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

True, thankfully i don't claim that they are.86.23.124.126 (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the article mentions The Man With The Rosette, who could be The Master,as well as The War King from faction Paradox. I suppose the burden of proof didn't apply there? Interesting that a group of people all suddenly appeared at once making such similar statements.41.133.0.18 (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting those. I'll mark them with template:cn. DonQuixote (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

...I've just rewatched the More Than Thirty Years In The TARDIS DVD. Unsurprisingly, Don Quixote's claims are once again false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.193 (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

...so please provide a source that supports whatever you're claiming. DonQuixote (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the one who needs a source. Don Quxiote stated earlier that there is evidence in MTTYITT that states that Dicks and/or Letts created a new character called The Master, who had never appeared before. I watched right through MTTYITT, and of course there is nothing of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.228.112 (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to admit that, as something I hastily pulled off the top of my head, I was mistaken about this one. But that doesn't negate the ones I actually looked up, like the above Life on Mars documentary...or the fact that there has been no evidence given that the Master was some old character given a new name or some such. Please provide a source that mentions anything like what you're trying to claim, otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time. DonQuixote (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as some people think "officially licensed material" means something, they might want to consult the 50th anniversary special official BBC web pages, one of which quite explicitly states that The Master first appeared in 1971: http://www.doctorwho.tv/50-years/monsters/the-master ; and lists the Monk as a separate character: http://www.doctorwho.tv/50-years/monsters/meddling-monk. So as far as the Beeb is concerned, the Monk is not the Master. As for the War Chief he gets a brief mention in an article about the end of the Second Doctor's tenure: http://www.doctorwho.tv/whats-new/video/the-doctor-summons-the-time-lords/. I don't think it's an oversight on their part. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

So basically, your argument against them being the same is because officially licensed material doesn't count? But then you use an internet website to back that up? Ultimately, like other things in Doctor Who, there is today, after 50 years, conflicting evidence. Thus, you must either go with the words of the people who actually originated the character, or the words of some internet geeks decades after most of the key players have passed away. And it is wrong that Wikipedia takes such a hardline stance supporting the one POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.48.170 (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No, if you read what he wrote carefully, he meant that for 'some people [who] think "officially licensed material" means something"', etc. And this is the reason that we write in an out-of-universe prose. That is, such-and-such character was created in such-and-such year by such-and-such people, whilst such-and-such licensed material mentions such-and-such about such-and-such characters. In other words, Wikipedia will say that Letts and Dicks said they created the Master to be the Doctor's version of Moriarty whilst FASA identifies the Master as the same character as the Monk. Etc. Wikipedia will not say anything else, such as that the two are the same character, without a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The "carefuller" reader as ever, DQ. But you finally seem to have got through to the anonymous proponent, in that he has conceded the necessity of going "with the words of the people who actually originated the character"--namely Letts and Dicks. Unfortunately he still tends to belittle those who disagree with him: the BBC is a lot of things, but "some internet geeks"? Methinks he doth protest too much. (speaking to the proponent) Look, mate: sometimes, not always but sometimes, when you keep running into a wall over and over again, no matter how fast you run you keep running into that wall rather than through it, sometimes you've got to admit the wall is there. Take a good hard look at what you've been trying to achieve and with what results, and why. You elevate FASA above the show itself--why, when FASA actually contradict you on the War Chief? You elevate novelizations above the show itself--why, when you seem to grasp that they are not actually what is on the show (Virgin etc.). I quite enjoyed Real Time on YouTube recently but it doesn't mean Colin Baker actually wore a blue suit in Doctor Who even though it suits the clever marketers at the BBC now to say he might've. It was expedient because that, for good or ill, was the limit of the animators' budget and it would be wrong to write on the Sixth Doctor's page that he occasionally wore a blue suit. Yes, there are inferences to be made from the words of the Time Lord who warns the Doctor about the Master; the problem is, you assume that there can only be one set of inferences, that they have to point to already-established characters in the show, and that you know (not conclude, but know) what those inferences are. In this matter, you lack metacognitive awareness: you are unaware of the steps taken, how you got from A to E, not realizing you actually got there by way of B, C, and D. That is the source of your frustration and why you occasionally throw a tantrum against Don Quixote who, in his infinite patience and rather like a Zen master, blocked your every incorrect assertion in the hope, however vain it has thus far been, that you might achieve some form of enlightenment. Sadly, this has not been the case. I honestly feel for you, as a fellow fan. But I implore you to put some distance between yourself and this thing, even if only for a few months, and come at it again with fresh eyes (renewed, you might say, or perhaps regenerated) and who knows, you may even be able to laugh and smile again--a new man. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

^Nope. Not even close. DonQuixote does not have "the patience of a zen master". Rather he has the stubbornness of a mule. The novelisations do not contradict the tv show. Rather they are usually written by the original author, and contain extra information for readers who have not read other books, or seen other tv episodes, to give a fuller picture and understanding of the context of the story. Thus, as an example, Malcolm Hulke(who both wrote and novelised The War Games) includes a first chapter in his Doomsday Weapon(Colony in Space) which explicitly establishes that up to that point Time Lords virtually never leave their home planet, and that only two(not three or more, two) Time Lords have ever left and become renegades. When a younger Time Lords asks the older to tell him about these two(The Doctor and The Master), the older Time Lord tells him that there were thousands of humans from the planet Earth who were taken to another planet, hypnotised into believing they were still fighting in their own wars on Earth, and that the Doctor ruined this plan of the Master's by calling in the Time Lords. Or Terrance Dicks(yes him!) gives histroy and context in the novelisation of Terror of the Autons. When the Time Lord with the bowler hat warns the Doctor of an old acquaintance returning, we learn that a)The Doctor and The Master are both renegade Time Lords, something ultra rare b)the name "The Master" is a new sobriquet, c)the Master was manipulating wars on an interplanetary scale d)the Doctor foiled those plans by calling in the Time Lords e)The Master's allies were removed from history, as though they had never existed f)The Master escaped, as a result that the Doctor believed that he didn't have a working TARDIS, when in fact he did g)It was at this base of The Master's that the Doctor was finally caught up to by his own people, which led directly to his trial h)The Master has now come to exact revenge on The Doctor. There's a lot more, but in no way shape or form do these facts contradict the tv show. Rather they give a deeper understanding for newbies, while confirming what longterm fans already knew. Hulke explicitly stated in interviews that during his time on the show there were only two renegade Time Lords(not three or four or whatever). In the interview on the Autons DVD Barry Letts speaks of how Delgado and the Season 8 Production Team altered the character of the Master from his prior appearances(I'll need to rewatch it for the exact quote). So, it is immediately obvious to anyone who is conscious what these men meant. ZarhanFastfire may choose to believe whatever he wishes, but what's the point of watching a show if you simply dismiss the actual authorial intent and clear-as-a-crystal-pond references and the bleeding obvious? The reason for not pursuing this is not because anyone has run into a wall, but rather because there comes a point when you realise that some people simply refuse to accept what is staring them in the face. Like Creationists and Evolution, DonQuixote just will not believe what is plain to see and perfectly documented. I know the truth, as do millions of others. While it would be far better if this article reflected the actual truth, rather than some 1990's revisionist nonsense, it doesn't bother me. Harold Saxon who heard the call to war, and ended up being taken away by the Time Lords after he himself called them to get The Doctor? The King's Demons? Nope, nothing similar there at all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.48.93 (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's funny that you mention creationism vs evolution, because there's this little thing about reliable sources and peer review ("I know the truth, as do millions of others" is a creationist argument).

But to the point, thank you for your original interpretation, however Wikipedia articles can't draw those connections without citing a third-party reliable source. Please provide some. Also, as for authorial intent, thank you for pointing out that Hulke seemed to imply a connection between the two characters in his novelisations...which has nothing to do with how Letts and Dicks went about creating the character and also happened way after the events in question.

Look, you and I might want the Master to be the War Chief, and we can point to all these implications that they are, but our interpretations and such mean very little to Wikipedia's verifiablility policy. The only things we can point to are what other people have explicitly said...so-and-so says this, so-and-so says that...Hulke says this, FASA says that, Letts says this, that and the other thing. No reliable source (or at least none that you have provided) has explicitly said that Letts and Dicks created the Master as a version of the War Chief or the Monk or whatever. That last sentence is the important bit. Please find a source that says that in real-world, out-of-universe, terms. DonQuixote (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong yet again. As has been discussed to death earlier, the only interviews with Dicks and Letts that are anything anywhere near contemporaneous established only that they decided that the Doctor should have a regular nemesis(Moriarty to the Doctor's Holmes), that he(and it was never going to be a she) be called "The Master", and that this character be played by Roger Delgado. There is NOTHING in the slightest that says they were creating a new character anymore than RTD and Christopher Eccleston created a wholly new character. In fact, every new incarnation of the Doctor has essentially been created anew, but it's always the Doctor(in fact the forthcoming 50th anniversary special appears to be showing an incarnation of a certain Time Lord who did NOT call himself 'The Doctor', but is nonetheless absolutely the same Time Lord as Smith, Baker, Hartnell et al. I wonder how you'll manage to handle that, if at all?) The material that is closest to the actual time has people like Letts and Dicks talking about "The Master"(but never saying it was an all-new character), while the novelisations, interviews etc. establish that there were only TWO renegade Time Lords, and give the identical backstory for the War Chief and the Master. Dicks wrote Autons in '74. His later interviews where he can't remember what he said two sentences ago are from this century. So which is closer to the actual time? In addition, going by your distorted logic Geoffrey Beevers played the Master for the first time ever in the audio "Master". "Keeper of Traken" only ever lists him as 'Melkur', whereas "Dust Breeding" only lists him as 'Seta'.

If this can be boiled down to its basest elements, your criteria change from one point to the next. You dismiss as irrelevant or OR(although even a jellyfish could figure it out without any real thought), or "in-narrative"(even when it's a licensed non-narrative book with Guide in its title). You dismiss material from the actual creators and originators that is contemporaneous, while embracing something written last week by someone who wans't even born, then trip over your own words trying to justify it. This will be my last post on this subject here, as the person in full-in Creationist mode is you, and you alone. Peter Butterworth, Edward Brayshaw and Roger Delgado all played the same Time Lord. Malcolm Hulke, Terrance Dicks, Barry Letts and Robert Holmes all said so at the time. As did various subsequent production teams and writers. However, it is true that Delgado was the first one who had the name "The Master". Just like there was a "Melody Pond", a "Mels" and a "River Song". Keep deluding yourself into believing whatever you want rather than what is as plain as plain can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.228 (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As has been discussed to death earlier, the only interviews with Dicks and Letts that are anything anywhere near contemporaneous established only that they decided that the Doctor should have a regular nemesis(Moriarty to the Doctor's Holmes), that he(and it was never going to be a she) be called "The Master", and that this character be played by Roger Delgado.

...which is the point. We can't say anything else about the creation of the character. We can, however, say things about the works after that point, such as mentioning the novelisations, etc. No one is saying that the Master cannot be the War Chief. It's just that we can't add that bit to the creation of the character without a reliable source.

There is NOTHING in the slightest that says they were creating a new character anymore than RTD and Christopher Eccleston created a wholly new character.

...and there is NOTHING in the slightest that says they were redressing the War Chief. Again, you're making a logical fallacy (and the same one that creationist make): you can't expect other people to deny your assertions, you--the person making the claim--have to find evidence to support your claim. So, again, please find a source that you can cite. If you do find a source, then your parallels to the Doctor and River Song would be correct because we'll have a source explicitly connecting the characters, just like we have sources saying Peter Capaldi is playing the Doctor and Melody Pond was written to be River Song.

In addition, going by your distorted logic Geoffrey Beevers played the Master for the first time ever in the audio "Master". "Keeper of Traken" only ever lists him as 'Melkur', whereas "Dust Breeding" only lists him as 'Seta'.

Thanks for your straw man. There's citeable sources (including the primary source) that says he was playing the Master.

If this can be boiled down to its basest elements, your criteria change from one point to the next. You dismiss as irrelevant or OR(although even a jellyfish could figure it out without any real thought), or "in-narrative"(even when it's a licensed non-narrative book with Guide in its title).

The fact that you have to "figure it out" means that it's original research, and "in-narrative" means that it doesn't say anything about the creation of the character. So, no, not changing anything on my part. It's just that you're throwing a lot of things against the wall hoping that something will stick and I'm just shooting them down individually. If it fails original research, then it fails original research. If it fails real-world perspective, then it fails real-world perspective. Etc.

You dismiss material from the actual creators and originators that is contemporaneous, while embracing something written last week by someone who wans't even born, then trip over your own words trying to justify it.

And, again, straw man...I haven't done anything like that. I'll say it again (copy-and-pasted from above): No one is saying that Master cannot be the War Chief. It's just that we can't add that bit to the creation of the character without a reliable source.

Peter Butterworth, Edward Brayshaw and Roger Delgado all played the same Time Lord. Malcolm Hulke, Terrance Dicks, Barry Letts and Robert Holmes all said so at the time.

So, please, cite one of those sources. DonQuixote (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

He has regressed to projecting his own failing arguments on to you, DQ. It's sad, really. In his reply to me he failed utterly to address any of the points I made, possibly because he did not understand them (actually I think he skipped all of it and went straight for your name). For his benefit I'll elaborate, because he has yet to grasp the basic difference in his premise and ours (to the anonymous proponent): You do not see that there is a massive and significant difference between what is going on in the show itself and what happens in all related media (books, games, etc.). Just try to take this in: it does not matter who wrote a novelization, because a television show is never simply the property or the product of one of its scriptwriters. Every episode of a show is the product of one or more writers, a director and a producer (sometimes more). You know how a book made into a movie is different? That the movie is not the book? That the author did not write the movie? It's the same thing with TV novelizations but in reverse. When Dicks wrote The Five Doctors script he intended that the Fourth Doctor would have a greater role but this was not feasible since Tom Baker did not participate. Dicks therefore had to rewrite his script. Now suppose Dicks is not happy about this and decides to publish a novelization which "clarifies" (or as you would put it "provides extra information" for new readers) the events of The Five Doctors and expands on the Fourth Doctor's role, making him the one who confronts Borusa while the First and Fifth Doctors join forces elsewhere, and the Second and Third Doctors too (this will sound familiar to some). This is not "extra information"--it has nothing to do with the essentially collaborative process which produced the anniversary special known as The Five Doctors. It does not show "what really happened". It is what Dicks would have liked to have happened. No doubt this seems really obvious. Well, sadly for your argument, what I have just said applies to all such spin-off material, regardless of who wrote them, novelizations by Malcolm Hulke, Roger Holmes, etc., and certainly to material written for a game. Anything written after the show has ceased production and which was not part of its final publication, i.e., anything said in a novel which contradicts what was done or said in the show itself, or indeed goes beyond what is said or done in the show itself, has nothing to do with the show per se because the author in writing a novel which goes beyond the script is effectively producing an adaptation, not, by definition, some transcript of hitherto unreleased, secret or otherwise "extra information". Anyone familiar with library science will tell you this. Now if you do not respond to me for a second time, addressing this basic theoretical argument, there is no point in continuing because you will have failed to refute the position--which is Wikipedia's position as an encyclopedia after all, and not ours alone. If you truly believe DQ is a mule for doing his unpaid job and upholding the principles of this information resource, I suggest you consider the saw of the pot calling the kettle black. You are the one repeating the same tired and many times refuted arguments: look in the mirror to see who has really been the silly ass all this time. Yes, your ears are looking rather long. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Target novels section

I get the impression that a certain anonymous contributor has been attempting to skew this section in the direction of his thesis. The giveaway is the bolded "two" with respect to the stolen TARDISes of one of the novels. The quotes are familiar to readers of the above lengthy sections of this talk page and (is it just me, but does) the content of the section suffer from an un-encyclopedic tone here and there? I don't have any of the novels to hand but I believe Don Quixote may and could check the quotes at least (I seem to recall there's been trouble with this before, and in any case the word "two" certainly would not have been bolded in the original novel, which raises concerns about the rest. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for assessing those. Bolding of texts is indeed emphasising what the texts imply and not what they state. Check out Talk:List of Doctor Who villains#War Chief, synthesis, and over-quoting where I have pointed out the synthesis there and put a template:synthesis tag in the article proper (List of Doctor Who villains#W War Chief). DonQuixote (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for the link. Busy, busy. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No, the word "two" is indeed put in bold(not 'bolded' as there is no such word) in the book. There is nothing that I added that is not properly WP:RS, unlike more than 90% of this article. And there is nothing of SYNTHESIS about this. These WP:RS all mention "The Master" by name. It was decided not to merge articles as there wasn't sufficient RS. However, what has been added here is the very definition of properly sourcing Wikipedia additions, again unlike the vast majority of this article. The fact that these WP:RS state something(and I never 'bolded' anything) that ZarhanFastFire finds unpalatable is neither here nor there. It is not SYNTHESIS or "attempting to skew" or anything even remotely similar. It is one of only a few instances where this article is actually properly WP:RS to desirable Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.229.135 (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the issue of "two" (my copy has it in italics). As for synthesis, that refers to the other article. DonQuixote (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

So we're agreed that this article is fine as it is(though unrelated to this, someone removed William Hughes from the actors who have played the Master)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.229.135 (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It's fine in that it doesn't include synthesis. It could probably do with a little copyediting to flow better and to reduce the excessive quoting. DonQuixote (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to pick a nit, but if the text in the novel is in italics, it should be so rendered in the article. That being said, I am pleased to have been proved only half right in this instance.

As for someone's assertion that "bolded" does not exist (how amusing, a word I and thousands upon thousands of others have uttered does not exist), I am sorry to be the bearer of what to you will be bad tidings. In linguistics, words exist when they are uttered whether you personally like them or not. Denial of the existence of words (of language change) is akin to the denial of climate change. It's happening all the time, just very slowly. The more people use new words or use the words in new ways, the more "real" and permanent the changes become. Being the authority on eloquence and rhetorical skills that you appear to believe yourself, you may believe you have no need of looking up words yourself, but just the same I will draw your attention to the online Urban Dictionary where the entry bolded appears as an example of "slang" (which is a term normally used by older people for words used by younger people until the younger people become the older people, when it becomes (imagine that!) just a word like any other, my favourite example being the usage of the word "hopefully" to mean, "in the hope that" or "it is hoped that". This usage is probably still called slang in some dictionary on your shelf. The beauty of the English language, as anyone who actually has studied English linguistics or philology (history of the language) knows, is that it is amazingly flexible and always changing: virtually every meaningful word can be derived, back-formed, or otherwise turned into a noun, adjective, verb. It may take time before "bolded" appears as a formal entry in the full-size (multiple volume) Oxford English Dictionary (I was involved in working on the Third Edition but in any case I am in no position to look it up now), but rest assured it is only a matter of time. (Well, what do you know? My time acquiring four degrees in English, three of them graduate degrees and two of them from Oxford, was not misspent after all, since I've been afforded an opportunity to educate someone on the vagaries of the language.) Oh, and do please try to spell my name correctly. And after all this time you might give us a name to call you, or else we may eventually have to make one up. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you haven't been proved half right at all. And your claimed degrees and feelings on language changes are irrelevant to the topic of this discussion.. Yes, I put a word in bold when it was actually in italics. Ok, that is true, however the word was still emphasized, just not the way I made it(adding extra ' '). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.46.222 (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Do try to make up your mind about what you are trying to argue. First you say I am "not at all" half right (which is all I said) and then you go ahead and concede that the text as it was in the novel was not precisely as you represented it. Which means I was half right: I assumed there was no emphasis at all; as it turns out, it was the wrong kind of emphasis (bold and italics are not the same), which you concede (quoting you now): "the word was still emphasized, just not the way I made it". Yes. That is the point: you over-emphasized it. If anything I was being generous to you by saying I was only half right.

To your second point: I agree with you, your point about the word I chose to use was irrelevant, but you made a big deal out of it, so I responded to it. That's how this works. You say something off topic and wrong, I respond and correct you until you stop or until I get bored. What I had to say about language substantially, if you read it properly, was not "feelings" but palpably demonstrable facts that the English language has changed and is changing all the time (you are familiar with Old English and Middle English?). If you don't believe me, go look up articles on the history of the English language. Your feelings about a certain word started this off-topic conversation, in a misguided effort to discredit me (not that anyone really cares about my use of the word "bolded" and would be swayed by an ad hominem like that), so don't complain when you piss into the wind and it flies back in your face.

Now, you are quite right that my educational background is irrelevant to the argument per se, which is why I've put it in parentheses. (It's called a fully developed sense of humour. If only more people had one.) ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I notice didn't manage to offend your linguistic sensibilities when I used a (mock)-Elizabethan word, "carefuller" (as opposed to "more careful", in modern standard usage) in an earlier response to Don Quixote. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

So you required multiple posts to say nothing much at all? Your original point was that the Target sections were somehow my pushing some "thesis" of mine. Which everyone agrees to be incorrect on your part. You were not half right on that. You were utterly wrong on that. As far as italics or bold, well the word was still emphasized, which you claimed was me trying to skew it towards my "thesis". As far as vocabulary goes: Merriam-Webster's contains the word "carefuller". No reliable dictionary contains the word "bolded". Either way, it seems to me that this discussion on the target novelisations has reached it conclusion. Lastly, I hope that your use of the word "piss" is in its acceptable 17th century usage, rather than the 21st century vulgarity. Otherwise you would be breaking the WP:CIVIL rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.46.222 (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, do try to decide what you want to argue. Multiple points, responding individually. If you think I am saying nothing at all, why are you so keen to respond (a matter of an hour or two)? Some thesis? Actually you are once again drawing on men of straw when you say "everyone" agrees with you. DQ has not commented on it directly, but give us some credit, your belaboured thesis is all too obvious after an entire year of repetitive posting. He has indicated that there has been over-quoting, and he will no doubt agree (as you have) that there is a difference between italics and bold. The only people left in this discussion, by the way, at the moment, are you, me, and Don Quixote, so let's not play to a non-existant gallery. If you believe the discussion about Target novelizations has reached its conclusion, then please stop claiming to be right when you have already conceded (above) that you were wrong to bold rather than use italics and do please stop going off-topic about things which you yourself say are irrelevant ("bolded", seriously, are you still going on about that?). If you expect me to go rifling through the other several dozen world dictionaries to argue about "nothing at all" you will be disappointed, because no-one else cares. Finally, I am using "piss in the wind" as everyone familiar with this expression uses it to mean: don't expect zero consequences from an act of folly. And for you, sir, to have the temerity to suggest someone else is breaking a rule of civility, when there is ample evidence on this page of you calling your opponents morons, geeks, etc., and accusing them of being less intelligent than jellyfish, requires real chutzpah. As I said once before, Don Quixote has shown the patience of a zen master with you. You have never apologized for any of it, I might add. Were I you, I should have apologized to him wearing sackcloth and ashes, and be grateful for his forbearance and patience. Mine, on the other hand, grows thin--but not to the point of leaving civility utterly behind, as you have done on numerous occasions. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

1)Yes, it was italics, not bold. It was still emphasized though, but I made a typo.

2)You seem to have conceded that everything else you took issue with was correct in the first place.

3)Please stop making long rambling posts about the English language. As a)no proper dictionary contains the word "bolded" and b)it's 'non-existent' not 'non-existant'.

4)This discussion does indeed appear to be over. The section is all properly sourced, and the offending bold text should have been in italics rather than bold

5)"Piss" is listed in OED as "vulgar, slang". It is strange that you try and come across as being all erudite(and bothering to mention all your degrees in the English language), whereas you have difficulty comprehending basic concepts.

6)Because this is a discussion about the Wikipedia article. Which is hopefully at an end. "Italics rather than bold". Yes. Everything else is essentially spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.46.222 (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding what you had already conceded. As for the rest, perhaps when you learn to (1) make proper arguments which do not consist of ad hominem attacks and (2) address your longstanding issues with civility, I will dignify some of your other comments with a response. In the meantime, yes the on topic discussion appears to have reached a conclusion, and I agree completely that your off topic obsession with a single word has been a colossal waste of your time. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding that your original point was almost entirely incorrect(although one small aspect, italics versus bold, was indeed true). As far as your other, unfortunate, comments, believe whatever you wish to. This discussion is now hopefully over for good. The sections were indeed relevant and shall stay, and you may claim some sort of victory in the fact that I accidentally used three 's rather than two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.8.92 (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Since it seems important to you, let's consider it logically shall we? There were really only three possibilities: right, wrong, and something in between. In other words, half-way between right and wrong, which is to say half-right (as I originally said) or half-wrong as you likely prefer. In your mind it may appear to be "almost entirely incorrect" but not in reality. Now please allow me to adopt a conciliatory tone. This business of who is right or wrong is not actually important. It distracts everyone from what should be our common and cooperative purpose: the presentation of information in a manner which is as encyclopedic as possible, which means it has to be succinct, accurate, and unbiased to whatever degree achievable. To that end, we rightly challenge assertions--but it goes nowhere if it is not done in a civil manner with a view to arriving at some semblance of consensus. So when you now refer to these apostrophes (which I assume are from the text of the novel you cite) all I can do is thank you for double-checking your source. If you double-checked your source because I questioned it, then I suppose that is some sort of "victory", but not in the way you seem to mean: it's not a victory over you. None of this is about you or me or any other editor. Peace, ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for this multi-posting, but I've just noticed that despite this fuss the quote in the article itself has not actually been fixed by anyone. I was about to do it but then I thought, no, you should have the honour, especially since you've done the work. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's utterly irrelevant to this article, but I suggest you read a short article called "Gaps in the Mind" written some years ago by Richard Dawkins. "Half-right" indeed! At least you now admit that the sections(barring the one minor typo) are indeed relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.229.102 (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing changes, eh? Still can't play nice. When exactly did I have an issue with relevancy? Are you perhaps referring to Don Quixote's statement about over-quoting? Talking of gaps in the mind, putting words in other peoples' mouths, as you have done frequently throughout this and earlier discussions, is an ineffective way of persuading people, as it comes across as incoherent. There have been so many straw men drawn into this and earlier discussions that I am beginning seriously to think you believe them to be real, and may be in need of professional help, or a good long rest as I suggested once before. I say again, this time in English: Peace. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Think whatever you will or can. As long as this discussion is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.30 (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

<bonks on the head> Talk pages are for duscussing an article, not settling personal spats! And sign your posts! Go to your user pages if you want to argue, for crying out loud! 'Talking of gaps in the mind', sheesh.--that annoying guy who shows up sometimes because he's bored, and has absolutely, positutely nothing else to do, whatsoever. (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Origins: BBC archive character sketch

Does anyone think this would be worth reproducing here in the article (if we're allowed) or else quoting from it more extensively? It was followed pretty well to the letter (except possibly for the use of the alias "Il Maestro", they missed that one). ZarhanFastfire (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Gordon Tipple not notable enough as the Master?

Would Gordon Tipple's appearance as the Master be too brief to warrant an article on him? Will non-Brits, namely Americans, object to an article about him? NorthernThunder (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can find multiple independent sources with information on Tipple, that should justify an article. This might be a challenge, since he doesn't seem to have played many high-profile roles, but if decent coverage is available, no one can reasonably object. —Flax5 15:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

He's not famous, he's just a body, so probably not.Zythe (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually I just created the page'Gordon Tipple. I need more references, though.--that annoying guy who shows up sometimes because he's bored, and has absolutely, positutely nothing else to do, whatsoever. (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help you with that. A few months ago I tried to see it their were any sources to be found to create an article about him, and I found absolutely nothing whatsoever. G S Palmer (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, then look properly: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] And that's just from the first page of a quick search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.173.250 (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Those aren't proper sources. They don't actually say anything about him other than listing his CV. DonQuixote (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Er, it's a biographical piece about an actor. it tells us where he was born, his age, and gives a list of stuff he's been in. What else did you want, the name of his cat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.173.250 (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

We already have that info. We need more stuff to flesh out the article. DonQuixote (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Good online article, maybe something can be added to article.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/18/ten_failed_plots_of_the_master/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.173.250 (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

CGI Snake?

In the confusion after the War Doctor reveal we were repeatedly and categorically told that no, Hurt could not go in the article's main image because he was not a 'series lead' and therefore insufficiently notable. Now the main image on the Master page includes the CGI snake from the McGann film!

Are we to believe that the CGI snake is more notable than John Hurt? Or is this just inconsistant and confused thinking?94.11.185.33 (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be changed to omit that, or at the very least reverted. DonQuixote (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Finally got around to changing the picture. DonQuixote (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice one. Sorry if the above was a bit angry-sounding, must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.94.11.185.33 (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

I notice that in the little box at the top of the page, Michelle Gomez is listed as being pictured, but is not. I've only ever once successfully uploaded a picture to Wikipedia, so I can't do it. Can someone else? Wilybadger (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

She is pictured, and has been for almost a week. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I feel vaguely silly. I had to hit F5 to see it. :D Wilybadger (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That'd be your cache. ;) Happens to the best of us. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

My photo of all the Masters...

I recently uploaded a photo of all 12 incarnations of the Master for the main photo, & it was taken down, & I was told to gain consensus on the talk page. Please help me.

Please view the photo under the file history of the Versions of the Master png file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucejoel99 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Obviously that picture depicts the Master from an in-universe perspective (cataloguing his 'known' incarnations in story-chronological order) so is inappropriate given Wikipedia's focus on writing about fiction from a real-world perspective. A separate (aesthetic) issue: perhaps we can remove either Pratt or Beevers from the current image, as neither was truly a very significant portrayal and both played the 'crispy' Master, and eliminate the blank space caused by adding Missy?Zythe (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In an out-of-universe perspective (all actors that played the character) I believe we should put in also William Hughes (the child Master) ––87.7.238.45 (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Why? He was uncredited in the episode, and appeared for a few seconds. What real world importance would William Hughes add, especially put (misleadingly) after John Simm? He shouldn't even be mentioned in the infobox, as that lends undue weight to his fan-pleasing but only momentary appearance.Zythe (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we could lose the 'crispy' masters, or at least one of them.

All incarnations shown in the series are relevant. This includes the child version and most certainly includes both Pratt and Beevers.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should include Hughes, considering that he was only on screen for a few seconds. The child Master is worth a mention later in the article, but not in the infobox. The same goes for Tipple and the comics and audio Masters. I definitely think we should include both Pratt and Beevers though, since they both made substantial appearances as the Master in the show – the fact that they're playing the same "incarnation" only has meaning from an in-universe perspective. What matters is that they're different actors, with major billed roles. They should be represented equally. —Flax5 23:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Good source for article and info on past characters of The Master

• BBC (8 November 2014). "Death in Heaven - Doctor Who Extra: Series 1 Episode 12 (2014) - BBC". YouTube. Retrieved 15 November 2014.

Could be a useful source for info, actors, characters, etc. — Cirt (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Companions section

So the long-standing "Companions" section was deleted a few months ago on one editor's opinion. I feel it at least deserves a discussion before outright deletion.

I'm in favor of keeping it. It's a trademark of the character to manipulate other characters in the series stories, and has happened in multiple episodes. Yes, it could use some sources, but as far as keeping the section itself, I say it warrants inclusion. 20:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The New Master Image

Shouldn't the new Master image at the top have either Pratt OR Beavers, as they were in fact playing the same version of the Master? Like, to have some parity with the Doctor article, Richard Hurndall's not next to Bill Hartnell in that.

It doesn't matter if they played the same "version" of the character in a fictional sense. What matters is that they're really two different actors, and that both of them were the one-and-only Master, each with a proper appearance as the character. Hurndall is different – he was just a once-off guest star in a Davison episode that featured four other actors as the same character. I think the fact that Beevers succeeded Pratt as the same supposed incarnation is important enough to warrant representation in the infobox image – without it people might get the wrong impression and understandably assume that only one actor played that incarnation. Besides, if we were going to omit one, how would we choose between them? —Flax5 00:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't Alex MacQueen be featured in the image, between Roberts and Jacobi?--Finister2 (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Article is fucked

So many factual errors, so much unsourced material, and some of the worst Fan Fiction I've ever seen. Disgraceful.

Well that's constructive. Perhaps you would care to identify those errors? Mezigue (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

New series

I read somewhere that the Master will be returning in the revival of the series as a spirit that takes possession of people's bodies after his demise in the classic series. ((That person was... Close? To right?)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.191.224.120 (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.92 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 31 March 2007‎

Unsourced. What you "hear" isn't valid information. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Master (Doctor Who) → The Master (Doctor Who) – Per Talk:The Doctor (Doctor Who). Unreal7 (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support: As per the move for Doctor -> The Doctor. Alex|The|Whovian 15:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support, seems pretty uncontroversial. —Flax5 16:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. If we have "The Doctor", then it's consistent to have "The Master". ╠╣uw [talk] 17:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support not a Master. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support for consistency, per the consensus at the recent RM at Talk:The Doctor (Doctor Who). Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support as per script of "The End of Time" in the Tennant era:
  

GOVERNOR: And this was written also, for his name is the Master! ...

MASTER: My name is the Master. ...

GregKaye 18:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support there are quite a few masters from DrWho, so the "The" will serve to indicate this is about the particular "Master" and not "masters from DrWho" (such as the very many school masters) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Companions

The section "Companions" is ridiculous and should be removed. It begins: Unlike the Doctor, the Master does not usually have companions. There have been times when he made exceptions, though in his case they are not so much "companions" as "tools". So... he doesn't have companions then, we don't need the following five paragraphs going into the details of his interactions with seven named individuals in order to debate whether or not they resemble or are in some way an analogue of the Doctor's companions. It's not suggested by the series that they are, all the sources for this section are primary (referring only to the episodes themselves), it's purely the analysis of wikipedia editors. Is or has the possibility of characters associated with or briefly manipulated by the Master being "companions" been discussed in reliable sources? Can it be seen as a notable enough theory to merit its own dedicated section in this article? Rubiscous (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

And again. The first Master is and always was....

https://books.google.com/books?id=fSySCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=%22peter+butterworth%22+%22the+master%22&source=bl&ots=CzUuAbcpzz&sig=kPyy17RrKz8VH84eMXnnCzd8zu4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEkQ6AEwC2oVChMIsu_41LOQyAIVNBfbCh21_Amb#v=onepage&q=%22peter%20butterworth%22%20%22the%20master%22&f=false

Add that to the FASA Role Playing Game, the specific Master module, the preview of The King's Demons in DWM, the episode of Mastermind, and more, and it becomes obvious that anyone who disagrees is pushing a POV, not going by reliable Sources.Nicholas Griggs (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the context of the others, although I'm sure you could point out plenty of examples which disregard or omit a "Butterworth Master", including Doctor Who Extra and the official website. And as User:DonQuixote stated way back in 2012, Life on Earth on the Terror of the Autons DVD. Besides, however you want to take the "earlier version" comment, the same passage in that Google Books link clearly calls them two separate characters. TardisTybort (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't "clearly call[s] them two separate characters". Did you actually read it? Nicholas Griggs (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that source. Evaluating that source from a neutral point of view and with due weight, Muir doesn't cite production documents or people involved with the production, so we can only surmise that it's Muir's opinion that they're the same characters, which we can state in the appropriate sections--much like how we already mention FASA's version of the character in the appropriate sections (along with all the other versions, including the one created by Letts and Dicks--which are supported by reliable sources as well). DonQuixote (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

We can also surmise that ALL your sources are "just opinions" So every source that says it's the same character is "just opinion", "primary sources", "Secondary sources" etc., while your sources are somehow the Reliable ones...? Nicholas Griggs (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh...I'm getting a little tired of people's lack of reading comprehension. As I have stated above, not citing production documents or people involved with production, etc. are why it's just an opinion...otherwise, it's verifiable information that can be cited as such in a tertiary source such as an encyclopaedia. DonQuixote (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written from a real world perspective. The Monk and the Master are different characters billed as such. Whether or not some person believes that they are secretly the same person within the story is not relevant. Please stop messing up the Peter Butterworth page - you are just misleading readers. Mezigue (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

And none of DonQuixote's sources mentions production documents or people involved with production.... Meanwhile that source states it's the same character, and the FASA Game states outright that Peter Butterworth was the first actor to play the Master. Mezigue is just pushing a fan fiction POV. Peter Butterworth was the first actor to play The Master. However, it is also stated that his character at the time was also called 'The (Meddling) Monk'. Mind you, Geoffrey Beevers was also called 'Melkur', Derek Jacobi was also called 'Professor Yana' etc. And we don't have entirely separate pages for each incarnation of those, like with First Doctor etc. Nicholas Griggs (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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."

Letts and Dicks created the character and were absolutely involved in producing the programme. DonQuixote (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Carefull now... The only one forcing his "fan fiction POV" is you. All the later examples you cite turned out to be those characters in the respective stories. No such revelation was ever made for the Monk. The FASA game does not have any authority; they basically made it up, and others started to believe them. Even the producers at the BBC have denied this connection. You are trying to force an in-universe theory (the character) to a real-world context (the actor) retroactively. Butterworth played a character called the Monk. Any connection to the Master is not even relevant to the actor's history. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the FASA GAme was produced at a time when JNT had Ian Levine looking over all Who product. Just as the preview of The King's DEmons in DW< # 75 would have been written in connection with the Production Team. Just as Terrance Dicks meticulously edited all Target books in the early years(which said things such as there only being two renegade Time Lords at that time), or how about the television show Mastermind saying that it's the same character, or...?

And what evidence was there against that? NOTHING. It wasn't until Paul Cornell wrote the abomination(and a book 99% of people have probably never even heard of, let alone its canonicity status being highly debatable) 'No Future' in 1994 that suddenly we were told that 'The Monk' is not the Master. Somehow, however, people like Mezigue and DonQuixote, who clearly only first heard of Who after this, seem to think that ws always the way. The BBC's website simply cut-and-pasted information from The Discontinuity Guide......written by the same Paul Cornell. Which leads us to today, where Edokter can state that "it's not the same character", while blanking something which has WP:RS. So, now an editor's personal beliefs(ie. WP:POV), somehow trump[s WP:V/WP:RS? If we are going by what the real world says, then it is undoubtedly the same character, and only someone who deliberately ignores the multitude of Reliable Sources saying they are the same, for no reason other than their own personal ignorance and arrogance, would dispute them being the same. Again, on another page, I added WP:RS saying that it's the same character, and two people blanked that, including removing two Reliable Sources/citations, simply because they thought they knew better than the RS. Disgraceful. Nicholas Griggs (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources originally quoted could be considered 'reliable'. Stephenb (Talk) 12:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You really need to wrap your head around the fact that there can be more than one version of a character, and both (or all) versions can be mentioned within an encyclopaedia article. It's already mentioned that the FASA game's Master was once the Monk. It can also be mentioned that the Big Finish plays have two separate characters of the Monk and the Master with no connection between them as yet. It can also be mentioned that Letts and Dicks created the Master as the Doctor's version of Moriarty. All of this can be mentioned within the appropriate articles. We do not have to choose one version to favour above all else. DonQuixote (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

And yet you clearly ARE favouring one version of the other. If there are Reliable Sources listing Peter Butterworth/the Monk as the Master(and there ARE. Several) then the article should reflect that, more than just one line near the bottom of the page. And since when are Big Finish suddenly the canon-keepers?

Wikipedia must maintain a Neutral Point Of View. yes, there are latter-day sources from the mid-90's onwards saying that it's two separate characters, but there are also a LOT of sources from the 70's and 80's saying it's the same character. The article as it stands now pushes YOUR POV as the "right" one, and only makes a brief passing mention near the bottom, That's not neutral. That's biased favouritism. Nicholas Griggs (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

They are separate characters from a real-world perspective as well as on the TV show (the primary focus of these pages), regardless of what some spin-off material has woven. Since you have been temporarily blocked after reporting me for vandalism while hurling insults at people, may I suggest you read this interesting essay before returning? Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Mezigue (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

As always, if there are a lot of source from the 70s and 80s, feel free to bring them to our attention as the two or three that you have provided don't say very much from a real-world perspective.

And you're right, Big Finish aren't the canon keepers, no more than the FASA game that you keep harping on about. And that's the point. These are different versions of the character and both are mentioned in the appropriate articles. Saying that FASA is better than Big Finish is you favouring one version over the other.

As an unbiased encyclopaedia article, we can list facts without interpretations

• Butterworth played a character billed as The Monk. Y
• Letts and Dicks created the Master as Doctor Who's version of Moriarty. Y
• Delgado played a character billed as The Master. Y
• Beevers played a character billed as The Melkur who, in the story and in follow-up media excerpts, was revealed to be the Master. Y
• The FASA game mentions that the Master was once the Monk. Y
• No Future mentions that the Master and the Monk are two different characters. Y (Have to take your word for it because I haven't read it.)

So where's the bias? How are we favouring one version over the other? These are a list of facts and one doesn't override the other. (The bias is in taking the FASA game's version and changing all the other facts on the list to conform to that one version--which is what you're trying to do.)

And as for dismissing reliable sources...you summarily dismiss Cornell's work in the same breath as complaining about other people dismissing reliable sources (see the above Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot recommended by Mezigue). DonQuixote (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Edward Brayshaw is the first Master NOT Roger Delgado

They called him the War Cheif in The War Games. He was a Time Lord, dressed like the Master, had a TARDIS, acted like the Master, had a role just like the Master. He had a scheme and plan just like the Master. He acted and looked exactly like the Master, and needs to be acknowledged as being the First Master. Roger Delgado's version of the Master is based upon Edward Brayshaw's version of the Master. Apparently some of you did not see, The War Games? This is a terrible over site on the part of of someone who didn't see all of the series and claims to be an expert. I saw them all, including most of the lost episodes before they were lost, and some of them showed up at Doctor Who Clubs. Someone who just saw the Color versions is in no position to claim expert knowledge on the subject matter. Edward Brayshaw is the first Master.

47.140.162.188 (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source that says anything like the above, otherwise it's your opinion and not verifiable. DonQuixote (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello DonQuixote,

Isn't the movie itself a reliable source?

Signed,

47.140.162.188 (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The serial only refers to Brayshaw's character as the War Chief. It says nothing about the Master. DonQuixote (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello DonQuixote,

Thanks for your help. I looked at wikipedia's definition of a source, and it says... "The piece of work itself". It doesn't say the name needs to be the same. In fact the Master is not his real name. In the show Gilligan's Island, they called the Skipper by his title, and they called the Professor by his title, and in the case of Doctor Who and the Master, he was refereed to by other names besides the Master, such as Professor, The Outsider, The Adjudicator, The War Chief. The Master went by other names as well. Just out of curiosity, did you happen to see, The War Games?

Signed,

47.140.162.188 (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen The War Games, and nowhere is he called the Master--just the War Chief. All reliable sources say that the character of the Master was created for Terror of the Autons and specifically for Roger Delgado. You would need to provide a source that says otherwise. DonQuixote (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

To illustrate the problem with what you're trying to do, I can equally claim that Data is another name for Spock and therefore Leonard Nimoy was the first actor to play Data. Unless I can provide a reliable source to support that claim, me saying that Data went by other names as well, such as Spock, is not much to base an encyclopaedia article on. DonQuixote (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been searching the web trying to find a so called "Reliable Source" giving official reference to Edward Brayshaw being the first Master. A link was provided to the official BBC Web Site, and the page had been deleted. So I contacted the BBC and made a request for them to post an acknowledgment for Edward Brayshaw being the first Master, or at least an honorable mention, since he has all of the attributes of the first Master, and it follows the story line of Patrick Troughton being replaced with Jon Pertwee and Edward Brayshaw being replaced with Roger Delgado. This way the story line has continuity and makes perfect sense. If I can get the BBC to furnish the necessary reference, than no one can argue with me anymore about it being a reliable source, since it came from the the BBC itself. I find it very disturbing that there is no mention at all of Edward Brayshaw, even though he was in character, wearing proper attire, with all the attributes, and behavioral traits. They had interacted with each other exactly the same way as the Doctor and Master normally would. It is so obvious to anyone who watched The War Games, that Roger Delgado’s character is an continuation of Edward Brayshaw. I hope I can get the BBC to post something that can be referenced to as a Reliable Source. Is there any way to at least acknowledge Edward Brayshaw in some way at all?

Signed 47.140.162.248 (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Brayshaw is acknowledged as having played the War Chief--a proper character in his own right. DonQuixote (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@.47.140.162.248: All this has been discussed before, see the archives of this talk page. Nothing has ever officially linked the War Chief or the Monk to the Master as the same character in the TV series, and the Master was indeed specially created to be Pertwee's nemesis, a full year after Pertwee began his tenure. This is supported by the interview DQ mentions, and by a rough character sketch from about 1970 for the Master, both sourced/linked near the top of the main body of the article. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Even unofficial sources and spinoffs have said the War Chief and the Master are separate individuals. Please feel free to read this, for example.

Most of us agree that Edward Brayshaw is the original Master, unless you are totally blind, and on some sort of an ego trip, out to prove that the world is flat. It’s very one sided when one person gets to force his opinion with total disregard towards what is obvious and apparent to everyone else.

47.140.162.240 (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Most of us do not agree on that, if you read the above comments. If you can find reliable sources that say differently, please feel free to provide them. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 22:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Edward Brayshaw should at least be mentioned as the predecessor to the Master, along with a display of his picture. After all, this article is dedicated to the Master, and leaving out Edward Brayshaw constitutes a serious disservice to the whovian community.

47.140.162.240 (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It’s very one sided when one person gets to force his opinion with total disregard towards what is obvious and apparent to everyone else.

That's why Wikipedia requires the citation of a reliable source so that it's verifiable and not the opinion of a single person. Currently, you have no source backing up your claim and you're the only person making the claim. Unless you can cite a reliable source, no one has to bend over backwards for you no matter how much you try to force your unverified opinion. DonQuixote (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Particularly when we have two rock-solid WP:RS which plainly state the character of the Master was created to be Pertwee's nemesis (I added the circa 1970 typewritten character sketch to the article, by the way, one of the few contributions I have made to Wikipedia that I'm unabashedly proud of--"Why, yes, I found that!"). Since I'm in that sort of mood: http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/changingwho/10313.shtml Note how it says "NEW CHARACTERS" right at the top. You'll have to find something that turns both this and Letts and Dicks stating it unequivocally themselves. Something like video of Terrence Dicks admitting in a candid moment, that, really, he was just unwilling to share credit with the creator of the War Chief, as someone on here once speculated. Dicks can be a little tricky to listen to sober, though, so what he would say when tipsy might be impossible to nail down and probably considered unreliable since, you know, he'd be drunk. But hey, maybe it's out there, see what you can find. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The 1970 typewritten character sketch of the Master fits Edward Brayshaw to the Tee. Must be purly coincidental.

47.140.162.88 (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This web site

http://theactivescrawler.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04

refers to Edward Brayshaw as the the Master precursor. At least show a picture of the Master precursor on that page dedicated to the Master. He belongs there.

47.140.162.88 (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Please format your replies with indents, not thematic breaks, per the standards of discussions. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. What's a thematic break? Why doesn't Wikipedia use a standard Word Processor Format, instead of this gobbledygook mess? Keep it simple. Wouldn't that make more sense?

47.140.162.88 (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

A thematic break is the big line of dashes you're doing. And because that's how we do it. Accept it. Also accept that there is basically a unanimous consensus that your information is merely original research. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The 1970 typewritten character sketch of the Master fits Edward Brayshaw to the Tee.

That's your opinion and constitutes original research which isn't appropriate for an encycopaedia article. We can only cite your work if you publish it in a reliable source such as DWM and not on a blog such as theactivescrawler.blogspot.co.uk. Please review WP:RS. DonQuixote (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. Thanks to the incompetent citation, it took me a while to find the relevant part of the blog site you are directing us to. Here it is: "First, the Master precursor, Edward Brayshaw as The Monk. He played opposite the 1st Doctor and shows all the signs of Masterdom. The Master, as a character, was created 2 years after his appearance." So, basically, although the author has totally confused the Monk and the War Chief (pretty hard to do that if you've seen the serials, but leaving that aside), as well as which Doctor was faced. That alone makes it unreliable on its face, the substance being he's a "precursor" to another character who was introduced later--which is exactly what the sources say: a "NEW CHARACTER". So instead of blanking that as you have so far, you might want to consider where this is coming from: the BBC Archives. It's written by the people writing and producing the show, not some obscure 21st-century blogger. They actually know what they are talking about because they made the show, which is why they are WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. Against this, you cite a random confused blogger? And you call the rest of us blind? That's not just willfully blind, it's intellectually lazy: "eyop,'s proof I'm right". Sorry, no, you're as wrong as it's possible to be here, and what really is sad, you dismiss things without a thought and cannot be bothered to do any real work. I really do despair sometimes. Oh, and, I'd suggest you look up "coincidental" and "precursor" in a dictionary. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Since when does a third party reference supersede the original work? That sounds illogical to me Mr. Spock. If you don’t care for the word “Precursor”, then you may use one of the following alternate synonyms to describe Edward Brayshaw’s character. Forerunner to the Master. Predecessor to the Master. Originator to the Master. Just don’t leave him out from an article that is supposed to be dedicated to The Master. Doing so would pose a serious public disservice. Shame on you guys for failing to see the forest hidden by the trees. Oh, and by the way, there is no such a thing as a coincidence. Everything happens by cause and for a reason. This is huge disservice leaving out Edward Brayshaw's role and character in the making of The Master.

47.140.162.125 (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

None of those are mentioned in any way by the orignal work (if you can provide a direct quote, then go ahead). That's why we need a third party reference so that it's not just your opinion. DonQuixote (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

After two weeks, the IP has provided no reliable sources to support their changes. They are only repeating the same non-arguments. The Master was not the War Chief. The Master was not the Monk. Recommend this thread be closed. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 20:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Coincidence is accepted, indeed, expected, by those in the reality-based community. Belief that everything happens, not merely from cause but also a "reason" is an article of faith, like the existence of God. The original work you refer to is the TV show Doctor Who, which has never in its history linked the Master with any other character except when he dramatically reveals himself to have been in disguise. That's never happened with any past characters established as Time Lords, nor with later ones like the Rani (funny, how all your arguments, such as they are, could be applied to her too; oh, it's obviously Missy in disguise, or, oh, another hitherto-unrevealed female incarnation--sounds like a load of cobblers to you, doesn't it? ("But they worked together!" So what, they time-travel, and so on.) Has at least as much validity as the Brayshaw and/or Butterworth theories. Whilst consulting a dictionary as previously advised, you might also look up the words, "coincidence", "synonym", "originator", "predecessor".... Actually, you know what? Just attend a course either in introductory logic or else remedial English. Either should do the trick, since basic reading comprehension is sorely needed. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

THE SKY IS BLUE. No it's not, because you can't prove it.

47.140.162.150 (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

See Rayleigh scattering. DonQuixote (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@DonQuixote - That was great. Cool!

47.140.162.220 (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Dates

I thought Wikipedia loved consistency? John Simm is currently listed as "2007-10, 2017", yet Ainley is listed as "1981-89" even though he didn't appear in '87 or '88. By that rule, Simm should be "2007-2017" or Ainley should be "1981-86, 1989". There doesn't seem to be any general rule here for the actor's tenures (also because it's so different to the Doctor's). 86.132.90.174 (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

One difference is that Gomez took over the role. DonQuixote (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Don. Ainley should remain listed as "1981–89", as the role had not been handed to a new actor when he returned in 1989 after his main tenure between 1981 and 1986. In 1989, he had returned to the role as the still-current Master. However, with Simm, his main time in the role was 2007 to 2010, he then left the role and Michelle Gomez took over from 2014, meaning that he was not in the role from 2010–2017, another actor(/actress) was. -- Alex^TW 22:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Incarnations between Simm and Gomez

Moffat did something rather clever with Missy. He allowed the Master to be genuinely redeemed yet continue to be a villain in the series. The Master is very annoyed that Missy's memory of events is so muddled that she does not even know whether she is "next one along" as he originally puts it, or whether there were other incarnations in between (any number of John Hurts, basically). This means when he kills her and tells her she won't regenerate, it may actually be true--but for all intents and purposes it doesn't affect the Master's future appearances or his villainy since for him the redemption hasn't happened yet. While we can't say any of this in the article, what we can say is Missy does not know how many other incarnations she had--and for that reason we cannot say, as the article has been saying, that he regenerates into her. That is not shown, and that is not known.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Two versions of the multi-Master story in the article

OK, we seem to have a real-world versus in-universe edit conflict going on (the m-M story is chronologically in the Gomez section where it should be, but also recounted in the Simm section too (where, because this is not strictly real-world chronological, it's kind of 'in-universe'). I propose removing material which is basically duplicating (inconsistenltly) from the Simm section and keeping it in the Gomez section, noting that they'll have to be compared for whichever texts are more up to date, properly referenced, no OR, etc. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Surely Alex McQueen and James Dreyfus should be added?

I think Alex and James should be added as part of the list of the Actors who have played the Master. Not necessary in the Main Incarnations lists, but at least in the Others List. They are canon, recognised Masters, so why shouldn't they be added there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clawraich (Dalek) (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

They're already mentioned in the article. And the infobox's primary focus is the television programme. DonQuixote (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The Master

The Master appeared in The Mind Robber with Patrick Troughton. Jenbil (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

That was a different character with a similar name. The Master in The Mind Robber was a writer from Earth and not a Time Lord from Gallifrey. DonQuixote (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Dash next to 2020

During 2014, Michelle Gomez's entry in the infobox had a dash next to the year 2014. I am aware 2020 is still the present, but we don't know that he will only be appearing in 2020.Comrade TruthTeller (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Seconded; the dash indicates "until the present day". Unless any source explicitly states the actor's departure after his last episode of this series, if that's the second episode or a later one, the dash should remain. 2.25.38.31 (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)