Talk:Morbius Monster

Rename discussion

In case anyone has missed this, I would like to point out that this incarnation has an official name, "the Morbius Monster", and has had that name for nearly two decades. That's how he is referred to in the Monsters and Villains reference book, published by the BBC. The name is used in both a section header and in running text, with proper-name capitalisation (so we know for a fact that it's not just a passing mention of "the Morbius monster"). It contains both his personal name "Morbius" and the objective description "Monster", the latter of which is also used (with proper-name capitalisation) throughout the novelisation, so I really cannot see any possible objection to this name. As far as I can tell, the sole reason it's being kept at "Second Morbius" is out of a neurotic desire to make it add up (?) to the completely unsupported fan-made name "Third Morbius" that someone has prematurely decided must be used for the Samuel West incarnation. I hope to see this resolved soon. PintlessMan ☎ 05:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit: I'm only now finding out that the novelisation outright calls him "the Morbius Monster" too. This is even more ridiculous than I thought. PintlessMan ☎ 05:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The undiscussed rename to "Morbius Monster" was undone on the basis of the fact that the proposed source, Monsters and Villains, means diddly-squat, as the name occurred in purely BTS-focused reference passages, not in in-universe fiction. (In some rare cases we might allow a reference source to guide speculative page-naming, but it is not clear that this would override normal naming policies for Time Lord incarnations, whatever those are. Very unclear jurisprudence, all this.)

If it occurs in Doctor Who and the Brain of Morbius, that's at the very least a much stronger argument than Monsters and Villains. That being said, I think T:BOUND might apply to all three Morbius pages until the discussion at Talk:First Morbius, which has bearing on all three incarnations, resolves? (Which it can't until User:NateBumber gets his OP in order — he specifically rejected my attempt to craft an OP myself, feeling that I was misrepresenting his points.) Not sure, but worth getting second opinions on. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel that is a fair evaluation of Monsters and Villains. Identifying it as "purely BTS-focused reference passages" is not quite accurate... as it is much messier than that. It has both in- and out-of-universe info.

Taking the Morbius Monster's page as an example, the first section of text on the page talks about the Monster about without saying "he was played by x y x" but it does say "In The Brain of Morbius..." at the beginning.

Then there is a diagram of the Morbius Monster that probably would be valid if it was in any way separated from the rest of the info, and then the final section of text is much like the first.

While some parts of the book really do blur the lines, with very OOU prose giving new in-universes facts, the Morbius Monster's page at least doesn't do that, although there is the whole "in x y z" story thing to contend with.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

10:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily fighting for validity, but I do want to clarify that is it absolutely not just pure OOU info.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

10:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

A non-transformative summary of what the Monster does in the TV story is OOU, in just the same way that plot summaries on this very Wiki are OOU. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 11:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue the page as a whole does add new info, on the basis of the diagram.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

12:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

If the diagram has a title and adopts a wholly in-universe perspective, it could conceivably be a valid GRAPHIC source. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 16:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)