Talk:The Master (Doctor Who)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Alias

The list of aliases in the character bio infobox is massively incomplete, as the Master has used dozens of aliases throughout the history of the show and other material. Off the top of my head, the Delgado Master posed as Father Magister, Colonel Masters, the Adjudicator, Professor Keller...

But adding all of those to the infobox wouldn't serve the article's readability well, so I propose that section of the box be removed. That is with the possible exception of Missy, since that was a name used for her entire incarnation in preference to Master, but I'm not fussed either way on that.

If they are considered notable (doubtful), an expanded list of the character's aliases could be added (and sourced maybe?) further down the article. At any rate, TARDIS Wikia are bound to have a complete list, so not including such a thing here is no great loss.

What do you think?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Article is POV

Can't remember the ecact name, but an officially licensed Doctor Who board game in 1980 said that Peter Butterworth and Edward Brayshaw also played the Master. Ditto one of the FASA modules. Again, officially licensed. If we go by interviews with Robert Holmes, Malcolm Hulke etc. then they too made that connection. Not to mention what is said in multiple Target books. So, why is that not stated in the article? Because some fanboy blogs don't like it! This article treats it as plain fact that Delgado was the first actor to ever play that particular character. And there us nothing to the contrary. Or if there is, it can be dismissed out of hand with a chortle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The FASA game is already mentioned. If you can find citations for the other stuff, feel free to add them.

Wikipedia is written from a real-world point of view where all these things exist simultaneously. There are several different and often conflicting versions of the same character. All versions are mentioned with due weight. DonQuixote (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Your links are irrelevant. Ad you said, there are often conflicting versions of the same character. But this article spends 99% of it pushing one version, then makes a brief reference to another one in a way which implies it is 'wrong'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The above links are guidelines on how to write encyclopaedia articles. If you don't want to follow them, then there's always tardiswiki or, you know, your own fansite.

And 99% of this article is about the television programme. The other versions are in subsections--such as Novelisations, Novels, Comic Strips, Audio Plays, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you pretending you don't understand? Or is there something more? Look: There are valid sources that state that the first sctor to play the Master was Peter Butterworth. And that Edward Brayshaw played the same character. This article instead ignores that completely. How is that "due weight"? Please answer what was asked, and not just post some prepared response that isn't really relevant to the question st hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Please cite those valid sources that says that the first sctor to play the Master was Peter Butterworth. And that Edward Brayshaw played the same character. "Due weight" is when it's not mentioned in this article because you can't provide those sources. DonQuixote (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

A word of advice on this edit, just state the facts and let the reader connect the dots themselves. A lot of what you wrote is already mentioned in the appropriate places in the appropriate articles. Unless a reliable secondary source goes into the details that you want to go into, tertiary sources, such as wikipedia, can't do that. Also, you can't just say "in interviews"--you actually have to cite one of those interviews. DonQuixote (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Created/First appeared in 1971?

Isn't it insulting to Terrance Dicks, Barry Letts and Robert Holmes to say that they "had an idea" and "created" a "new" character to be a recurring villain...and all they(plus the other Season 8 writers) could come up with was a carbon copy of the War Chief? All the creativity, ideas etc., and all they had was "Let's recycle a character we just used, in The War Games"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.126 (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source saying anything like that. Otherwise see WP:NOTAFORUM. DonQuixote (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There are reliable sources. Which you dismiss as "narrative", even though they are very clearly written as being about Doctor Who. And about The Master. If a source which is not narrative says outright that someone who appeared before 1971 in Doctor Who is the Master, you immediately reject it. While simultaneously endorsing 10 000 word paragraphs about novels and audios. In which a lot of the information is wrong anyway. Equal weight? No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.126 (talk • contribs)

Please cite a reliable source stating anything like Isn't it insulting to Terrance Dicks, Barry Letts and Robert Holmes to say that they "had an idea" and "created" a "new" character to be a recurring villain...and all they(plus the other Season 8 writers) could come up with was a carbon copy of the War Chief? Otherwise see WP:NOTAFORUM. DonQuixote (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

So, you deliberately avoided the question. Again. It's clear you're pushing one POV. And it's built on hot air.

Seriously, as I've said before, if you're unwilling to understand the difference between the source material and the adaptation and that the creators of the source material are under no obligation to adopt anything from the adaptation, then that willful ignorance is entirely on you. All your questions have been answered multiple times. I'm done repeating the answers because they're just explanations of simple, basic concepts. All I'm going to say is please try to stay within the guidelines. DonQuixote (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Again. WP:RS that are not narrative have stated outright. You said one on another discussion page was valid. The FASA source is a published book, where the information contained is factual NOT narrative. I have read through discussions on this page, where someone made a good point that you ignored. Namely, if this article had originally been created stating that "the monk" and "the War Chief" were both the Master(and using the multiple WP:RS to back that up, would you have sufficient WP:RS to change that? You responded to that person, and that question, the same way you are now. Namely by shouting hollow slogans, that don't actually address the specific issue at hand. because, underneath all your little cut-and-paste responses, you have nothing Nothing at all. You may even believe you are following WP guidelines, but you ain't.

The FASA game is an adaptation (like Batman Arkham Asylum is an adaptation). The "facts" only apply to the game.

if this article had originally been created stating that "the monk" and "the War Chief" were both the Master(and using the multiple WP:RS to back that up, would you have sufficient WP:RS to change that?

1) There aren't "multiple reliable sources" that state that. If there were, then there wouldn't be a problem. 2) From Life on Earth (on the 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.

And if you see policy, whether wikipedia or acadaemic, as "hollow", then your willful ignorance is all on you...and another reason why I'm done explaining policy. There's no point in explaining something that you won't take seriously. DonQuixote (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

And how does that prove your point?

The point is, please cite a work of nonfiction that says anything like what you're trying to claim. Ask a librarian where the nonfiction section is. DonQuixote (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

As repeatedly stated, og rude little poster, the information in the FASA Books is NOT part of the game. It is information, that is intended to give the actual gameplayers a greater knowledge when they play the actual game. It is equivalent to when someone buys a DVD or Blu-Ray. You get the tv show/movie. But you also get INFORMATIONAL behind-the-scenes material that is not part of the actual tv show/movie. It is impossible that you fail to comprehend that. So, it is clear you are 'playing stupid', because to do otherwise would be to sink your entire "argument", built on nothing but your own personal POV. As for some other "nonfiction"... [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Put that in your pipe.

The FASA books are the game. If you go to a library, the rule books for role playing games are in the Games section and not in the Television section. They're not INFORMATIONAL behind-the-scenes material because there's nothing about anything behind the scenes in them. A child of ten can understand the difference.

It is impossible that you fail to comprehend that. So, it is clear you are 'playing stupid', because to do otherwise would be to sink your entire "argument", built on nothing but your own personal POV. You're describing yourself there, mate. A child of ten can understand the difference between the original work and an adaptation and that the two can have different versions of the character, as well as all the other adaptations having their own version. And thanks for providing one additional source (and making it appear you provided more--real honest there, mate). You can add that to the Reception section because it doesn't describe anything behind the scenes--i.e. it's not informational behind-the-scenes material. DonQuixote (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, no one uses Dungeons & Dragons as a secondary source for an encyclopaedia article for Tiamat. It's listed in In popular culture where it belongs. Similarly, the FASA game is in other media. DonQuixote (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

No, trollio. The IN-FOR-MA-TION section is NOT PART OF THE GAME. The FASA Books contain games in them, yes, nobody is denying that. But they ALSO CONTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THE SETTING, CHARACTERS IN THE GAME. It is describing what happened in the narrative. It is NOT the actual narrative itself. Either get a clue, or just leave this "discussion".

And, what's more, MATE, the one source is give pages long. There doesn't appear to be a single page where it's all together. How is that MY "making it appear [I] provided more"? Are you really THAT desperate, that you'll resort to that level of lying? Guess you are. This article is a disgusting mess as it is. Which is just the way you are desperate to keep it, all all costs. I see other people have tried to have this same discussion with you over several years, and your obstinance and name-calling drove them away, NOT any "sources" you hollowly claimed to have. And, you never answered that other person's question some years back, just as you never answered it when I brought it up. Because you never answer any questions directly.

ALSO CONTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THE SETTING, CHARACTERS IN THE GAME

The key words being in the game. Seriously, no one uses a game manual as a secondary source for anything (apart from the game itself). Either get a clue about primary sources, secondary sources, etc. or leave this "discussion".

There doesn't appear to be a single page where it's all together.

The commone practise is to just link to the first page. Most people know how to flip through HTML pages.

And the point is that you don't have any sources. That's the irony. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You have to provide sources. Things have to be affirmed not denied. And, most importantly (as I've said time and time again), every version of the character is listed here. We're not going to bend over backwards to put your favourite version of the character on a pedestal. DonQuixote (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

No, the key words were that THAT'S NOT PART OF THE GAME ITSELF.Seriously, if you buy a tv, do you sit watching the box it came in, or sit trying to work out why the instruction manual doesn't have any picture? Please just drop this nonsense.

And, you admit you don't have anything. Got it. And "every version of the character" is NOT listed here. Only the ones you seem to want.

Seriously, the instruction manual for the TV is only for the TV and for nothing else (specifically, not other models). The instruction manual for the game is only for the game and for nothing else. You drop this nonsense. If the only things that you can come up with are a game and two opinions, then it's fringe. You know what can make it not fringe?--if you can cite interviews with Letts, Dicks and Holmes or cite well-researched articles in something like Doctor Who Magazine; etc. This gives it more weight and can be expanded from the game section that you're so unhappy with.

And, yeah, no. The FASA game version is listed here, as well as the television version, the audio play version, the parody version, etc. If you can find more versions, then feel free to add them. Seriously, the game is listed as one of the versions. The fact that you're ignoring that makes you seem dishonest. DonQuixote (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, you really need to wrap your head around the fact that the television version is independent of the game version. The creators of the source material are under no obligation to adopt anything from an adaptation. DonQuixote (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I sussed what a part of the problem is. Let me be a little clearer. Every version of the character that's been published is listed here. This includes the FASA game version, the television version, the novel version, etc. The version in your head, the one where you stitched together the game version with the television version, that one hasn't been published in any form, so we can't list that version here. For that version to be listed, you need to cite interviews with Letts et al or cite a well-researched article in a journal, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

So, all you have are empty slogans, insults, and acting ignorant?

Isn't that describing you? Seriously, I've tried to explain everything in excruciating detail about policies and acadaemic concepts. Again, if you're unwilling to understand what a primary source or a secondary source is, as well as their limitations in writing an encyclopaedia article, that willful ignorance is all on you. Also, you have failed to provide the 10 sources that are representative of the "abundance of material" that you claim. Seems like you're the one with empty slogans and hollow claims. And it's ironic that you added this: "Masterful(standard edition) - Cast". Retrieved 15 June 2020., which clearly states A special release marking the 50th anniversary of the first TV appearance of the Master in January 1971.

Seriously, how hard is it to understand how writing about fiction works? How hard is it to understand the difference between the original work and its adaptations? How hard is it to understand that there can be more than one version of a character? How hard is it to understand that encyclopaedias such as wikipedia operate by summarising works of nonfiction?

So again, please cite at least 10 sources that are representative of "abundance of material" that you're claiming. DonQuixote (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

So, now you're shifting the goalposts again? "At least 10 sources"? Who made some little troll like you the authority? But, here's one more(you don't deserve more)... [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.126 (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Nope, just pointing out how hollow your claims are. Technically, all you really have to do is to cite an interview or a behind-the-scenes magazine article or a behind-the-scenes book or a behind-the-scenes documentary or some other behind-the-scenes work of nonfiction. Good luck finding one. DonQuixote (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)