Talk:Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration

Merge

This page's presence was predicated on its existence being re-litigated after the Master-split. And, as I'm sure we're all aware, the Master-split has come and went. The primary arguments for coverage on Spy Master was that it (1) followed the Wiki's "continuity-of-consciousness" precedent for coverage and (2) all information that would be covered on an additional page would have to be covered on Spy Master as well. Both of these arguments remain true. The first point was stated ad infinitem on the previous discussion and I will not re-explain it unless that is something others wish of me. The second point has proven to be even more true than I expected, as all of the information covered on this page is covered better on Spy Master and Thirteenth Doctor. What benefit is there in having a second page that merely duplicates coverage that is on another page? NoNotTheMemes ☎ 21:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, as I was then. Najawin ☎ 21:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The script makes it super clear that “The Master-Doctor” is a distinct being from both the Doctor and the Master. Dhawan’s role changes in the script. Point is. If Chibnall considers them distinct enough from the Master and the Doctor then the wiki should. I’d say “The Master-Doctor” should get its own page with Chibnall’s script name. The fact is it’s a hybrid of the two. Which should be coveted separately. It’s easy to say “he just acts like the Master though”. True he does, but I’d argue that’s a shortcoming of the story rather than proof it wasn’t Chibnall’s intention for it to be a separate being. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.108.82.15 (talk • contribs) .

We do not use details in the script to establish in-universe details. It's very much a violation of policy. Hence, why, for instance, we haven't said that Rasputin is The Master, rather than The Master pretending to be Rasputin. Najawin ☎ 23:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

While we do not use scripts to establish in-universe details, the script does not make it "super clear" --in fact, the script goes back and forth between referring to the "Master-Doctor" as "The Master-Doctor" and "The Master" (per example though not limited to, pages 59, 60, 73, 80, 83). Notably, it never refers to him as "Doctor" but that's neither here nor there. Here's probably the most clear cut line "And as the Master looks -- his own Rasputin form is in the other regeneration cylinder -- energy flooding back to the husk --" Here, the script very clearly reiterates that this "Master-Doctor" is the Master and that his true body is the "Rasputin form". If we are to take the script as a means of ascertaining in-universe information, it is on the side of them being the same character. After all, Chris Chibnall's script says that the Rasputin-Master is the Master-Doctor's true form. NoNotTheMemes ☎ 01:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the TPotD differs from the televised story in many little ways. It feels like an earlier draft of the script TBH.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

23:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I still think “the Master-Doctor” should get a separate page as at very least a hybrid. It’s still the Doctor having regenerated into the Master who sees themself as the Doctor. Others call them the Master because he’s not truly the Doctor. Point is it’s a hybrid situation at bare minimum. It’s still the third incarnation of the Doctor’s second regeneration cycle, before being reverted. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.108.82.15 (talk • contribs) .

please use the four tildes ~~~~ when commenting. Danniesen ☎ 11:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with 81.108.82.15 about The Master-Doctor. But this page isn't The Master-Doctor. It isn't a page about an incarnation at all. It's about the Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration, its immediate effects, and its reversal. This page has a right to exist by virtue of T:WIKIFY, and while I haven't gotten around to it yet, I also look forward to creating pages for Romana I's regeneration, Third Doctor's regeneration, and so on. If we were to have another discussion about "The Master-Doctor" on some other talk page or in the forums, either outcome wouldn't mean this page should be changed. But there's no reason for the discussion to happen here. – n8 (☎) 13:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"Point is it’s a hybrid situation at bare minimum."

No it's not. Sorry, that's just not true. As far as the wiki's policies are concerned, we care about continuity of consciousness and what is explicitly stated in the text. Under these metrics it's not a hybrid situation, it just is The Master. As stated on the old talk page, it would be like suggesting that we'd treat this like some sort of hybrid of Tremas and The Master. It's just not how we do things.

As for Nate's approach, I mean, sure, but that's not really been an tack taken before. (Though obviously the discussion does have a reason for happening here, namely, the prior discussion at Talk:The Master/Archive 8, where people assent to this page's existence insofar as it's relitigated after the master split.) Najawin ☎ 15:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, two people mentioned such a clause, which no one else echoed or affirmed. It strikes me as supremely odd, since (a) the debate was about whether or not to create The Master-Doctor, (b) the conclusion was that no Master-Doctor page should be created, and yet (c) those who demanded that the debate be reopened, and have here moved to reopen it, were against The Master-Doctor! Given the absolutely vile denigratory rhetoric which accompanied that discussion both on- and off-wiki, personally I have subzero interest in seeing it resumed; while in the end I think it has no bearing on the viability of either page in question, since you mention T:MERGE's recent codification of the "continuity of consciousness" rule of thumb as the be-all end-all condition of merger decisions, I move that we further postpone the relitigation until after that imposition of an arbitrary metaphysics of identity has been revisited in the forums – or, failing that, indefinitely. n8 (☎) 16:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I understand your point on the issue of how heated the prior discussion became. Well, on wiki, at least, can't comment on off. Not being directly involved in the rhetoric shifted my perspective slightly and I went back and skimmed. I do think there was some tacit agreement on the part of other users though. The relitigation was a proviso to the compromise! But I can completely understand needing some time to let tempers cool, or wishing for a different structure to this discussion. That's fair enough! Najawin ☎ 16:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The creation of this page was a compromise wherein The Master-Doctor was still essentially created, albeit with a new name. And to the argument that this page has "a right to exist" by virtue of T:WIKIFY, (1) the information is wholly covered on another page with no added detail here and (2) this does not add anything to our understanding of the Doctor Who Universe. That's the basis of our policy under T:WIKIFY. The creation of Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration was designed as a temporary compromise between the positions of "giving the Master-Doctor their own page" and "covering the Master-Doctor with the Spy Master". I feel no need to litigate the codification of "continuity of consciousness" because it would still have been the law of the land without it being implemented on T:MERGE. All of the precedent

supports "continuity of consciousness". The deletion of this article is inevitable, trying to push it back "indefinitely" is to act in disregard of the policies of the Wiki. I also see no reason to spend more time to let tempers cool, it's been five months. NoNotTheMemes ☎ 17:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"The deletion of this article is inevitable"? Seems like more time would be wise, yes. – n8 (☎) 17:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe more time is necessary. The reasons aren't going to change five months from now. Letting this article continue to exist creates precedent for more unnecessary duplicate articles to be created. That sort of precedent is not good for the Wiki. Hence, we should take action. To do otherwise is to drag our feet and create further problems to deal with down the line. NoNotTheMemes ☎ 18:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)