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)

....I almost regret asking this, but could you clarify that point Memes? Do you consider the other articles Nate has proposed, "Romana I's regeneration, Third Doctor's regeneration" to be these "unnecessary duplicate articles"?

If so, would the two of you be willing to shelve this topic for the time being provided no such other articles be created and this article not be taken as precedent in any way? (Provided we get an admin to come in and make this official until we revisit this topic at a later date?) I certainly see Nate's point, and he's clearly not comfortable reopening this discussion at the present time. So a more formal discussion in a forum thread discussing T:WIKIFY or T:MERGE (with this as a sub issue) might be a good idea. Najawin ☎ 21:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

(Sure, if Memes agrees to the above, I'll hold off with my draft of Third Doctor's regeneration.) – n8 (☎) 13:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

As to the points raised by Nate, the existence of Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration is fundamentally no different from the existence of Master-Doctor. They both cover the exact same subject matter as another page, but arguably in an incomplete way. The discussion of "metaphysics" really has very little to do with the fact that it's ultimately just not helpful to readers. There is zero information on this page that is not covered on Spy Master --and the removal of any of that information would make Spy Master an incomplete and (frankly) worse article. Similarly, a page like Third Doctor's regeneration (or to give further example, Fourth Doctor's regeneration or Tenth Doctor's regeneration) would be unnecessary at best. The Third Doctor's regeneration is already covered in sufficient detail on Third Doctor and Planet of the Spiders. Having pages for regenerations as events requires enough information to justify separating them from their coverage on their (1) story page and (2) character page. I do think Romana I's regeneration is more justified, given the conflicting accounts of those circumstances and the presence of three actors that aren't Lalla Ward. The Third Doctor's regeneration is slightly more questionable to me, but I understand it's creation given the in-universe retcon in Interference. While I personally believe that is sufficiently covered already, I see the merit in having it covered on an individual page. What is worse about this specific instance, to me, is the fact that this isn't even the only outgrowth from our peculiar coverage of the Spy Master in The Power of the Doctor. Not only are these events covered in detail on Spy Master and The Power of the Doctor, but they are also covered on The Master's Dalek Plan and Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration. Notably, The Master's Dalek Plan has a "to be added" for the section dedicated to The Plan --presumably because it's hard to rephrase the contents of Spy Master#Becoming the Doctor in a third way without sounding obtuse. Even if you take issue with T:MERGE's codification of 'continuity-of-consciousness', there's just nothing to gain by having four articles covering the exact same material in the same level of detail. Kicking the can down the road just feels unnecessary. NoNotTheMemes ☎ 22:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Though I'm going to side-dodge the matter of Master-Doctor personally, I would say that I agree with Memesy that we are unduly duplicating information in this instance. We don't need coverage of this to be held:

• here
• Spy Master
• The Power of the Doctor
• The Master's Dalek Plan

(And to a much much lesser extent, on Thirteen's own page)

I get the concern about interpretation of 'continuity-of-consciousness', but for one thing; having both here and The Master's Dalek Plan is not just duplication... but also likely to lead to a situation where we are seeing people variably link to one of the two. (Or worse, the two pages becoming cross-linked.)

In general, I think there's an issue with creating pages on Doctor's regenerations and degenerations - apart from perhaps the varying accounts on Eight's (though, I'm sure we have a Ninth incarnation page of some manner that does effectively work for that?) - in that they are very unlikely to do anything but duplicate the level of detail that will already be present on the story page.

It seems much more in keeping to cover whatever the Spy Master & Power pages don't on The Master's Dalek Plan as the 'event' page, in my opinion. JDPManjoume ☎ 19:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, look, this has become about a larger issue, is everyone fine with a forum thread addressing it? There's some old discussions that never went anywhere, (Forum:Battle of the Ood Sphere) so it makes sense to have a forum thread on events generally, as opposed to battles (Forum:Skirmish at TARDIS Wiki). Najawin ☎ 19:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

No, everyone is not. I mean, you can put forward a proposal to discuss it, of course, but speaking with an administrative vantage point if not quite the full weight of an assertion of policy, I generally think event-pages qua event-pages are by now understood to be a beneficial and necessary part of the Wiki's ecosystem. A crucial factor which wasn't present at the time of those old [[Forum:]] discussions is the existence/documentation of many valid sources that give us actual, non-conjectural names for those events.

But even setting that aside, these pages also fulfill a need. At the very least, contra User:JDPManjoume's message above, summaries on story pages can't fulfill the same need; not only because it's wholly improper to link to them within in-universe text, but because story summaries may withhold information that is only revealed late in a story, or otherwise follow their source material's non-linear format, instead of presenting the unfolding event in its in-universe chronological/causal order.

So: the worry is not duplicating plot summaries, but needlessly duplicating information that is documented on other in-universe pages already. While it is sometimes necessary, such a situation is generally to be avoided, as it risks the introduction of unwarranted discrepancies if editors guilelessly edit one page but not its twin. Two event pages about aspects of the same event are particularly suspect in that paradigm. Not, I will stress, necessarily suspect. The Cataclysm is distinct from War in Heaven, Destruction of Skaro is distinct from Shoreditch Incident, and that is as it should be. But we do have to think about whether we need to split off that information to its own page to best cover it to its fullest length.

In the original protracted debate, I, myself, raised the possibility of covering it at The Master's Dalek Plan. At the time, the sentiment was that the plan had too many moving parts as it was, and the page couldn't easily accommodate an account of the forced regeneration itsel. But — although I think the current form of Master's Dalek Plan is stubbier than it could be — hindsight has shown that to be far from true. In the end, after reviewing this discussion once again, I find that the fairest solution is simply to merge Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration back into The Master's Dalek Plan — analogously to our coverage of the very short-lived "Paul McGann Master" situation in the TVM at Regeneration Operation, even though that plan certainly had other moving parts leading up to the grand finale of highjacking the Doctor's lives. In both cases the regenerative tomfoolery was the central purpose of the scheme, and it's just a bit strange to try and cover the scheme without its beating heart(s).

Naturally, the actual events of the forced regeneration and the resulting body's existence should get their own subsection at The Master's Dalek Plan, to which Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration will continue, perennially, to function as a redirect.

None of this has any direct bearing on the creation of further pages along the lines of the wonderful Romana I's regeneration, unless those events also find themselves at the heart of events which also have their own pages elsewhere. To clarify a counterexample: both of the Tenth Doctor's regenerations result from events with their own pages — the Planetary Relocation Incident and the Ultimate Sanction respectively. But Ten's regeneration was not the main object of either event. Even if we end up with a full flush of pages for the televised Doctors' regenerations, I don't think "Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration" will come across as a keenly-felt absence: after all, its relevance to the Doctor's regenerative history qua regenerative history can be documented at Thirteenth Doctor's regeneration itself (which, after all, it preceded by a few hours at most, and fairly directly caused), {{main}}-ing to The Master's Dalek Plan for the nit-and-gritty. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This really takes the cake. – n8 (☎) 11:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

To elaborate briefly: in light of the mature ecosystem of regeneration pages, I'm tempted to recreate Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration per T:WIKIFY alone. But I won't, because it goes deeper than that. To answer one closing statement with another,

There is significant sentiment that the "Dhawan Doctor"'s history, appearance and significance should be discussed on their own page, separately from our coverage of the Spy Master and the Thirteenth Doctor. However, there is also significant sentiment that it would be wrong to characterise him as a person separate from the Spy Master, or as precisely "an incarnation of the Doctor". I am not here to litigate which sentiment is correct on the latter front: I don't think we all will ever reach a consensus on that without further evidence. We could be here all week arguing about whether the Doctor-Master is more like the DoctorDonna or more like the Metacrisis Doctor and we would, in all likelihood, still get nowhere.

Instead, I propose that, in line with something like Bad Wolf (entity) or pages about aliases like Harold Saxon, we create a page describing the nature and short existence of the Dhawan-Doctor-Master entity, structured as a page about a phenomenon more than a page about a character. It should not use {{Infobox Individual}}, and will be placed in neither Category:Incarnations of the Doctor nor an eventual Category:Incarnations of the Master, but it will be placed in Category:The Doctor and Category:The Master. Both Thirteenth Doctor and Spy Master should summarise the events surrounding the Dhawan-Doctor-Master in similar, sparse details, and use a {{main}} template to the page about the incident, similar to links to Exile on Earth or The Master's early life. […] I no longer believe that covering it at The Master's Dalek Plan is the right move; the plan has too many moving parts not really directly relevant to the entity itself. I am tempted by the name Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration, which could describe both the incident and the "individual" depending on how you look at it. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The bolded assessment, posed as "[not] quite a Proper Admin Conclusion", was subsequently ratified by community consensus. However, Scrooge's new decision here indicates that Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration wasn't a workable match for the plan laid out in October. It's now been merged into The Master's Dalek Plan, which sits in neither Category:The Doctor nor Category:The Master. In other words, no page currently meets the conditions required by community consensus in the earlier discussion. Therefore T:BOUND mandates that a new page be created to meet those conditions. Thankfully, the script release has given us a much clearer page name: The Master-Doctor, a new identity/entity page akin to Harold Saxon, Bad Wolf (entity), and The DoctorDonna. I'm tempted to create this page myself per the age-old wiki mandate to "Be bold", but for the sake of my ongoing admin nomination and potential adminship, I'll merely leave this comment as an invitation for someone else to pick up the torch. May The Master-Doctor's days be long and untroubled! – n8 (☎) 19:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this is probably T:BOUND-kosher, though I remain of two minds about the proposal on the merits, so yes, let's discuss it.

Aah, the forced-regeneration scheme; will we ever see the end of it… We considering covering the Master-Doctor as an incarnation of the Doctor — but that made no sense. We considered covering him as an incarnation of the Master — but that falls afoul of the "we don't have two Jodie Whittaker Doctor pages" of it all, and the Crispy reversions. We considered covering him as an event — but the event is coterminous with the Master's Dalek Plan as a whole.

If he's neither individual nor event, does covering him as an alias finally square the circle? That is the question we face today. To which I say: hmm. Hmmmm. Well, maybe. The issue is that the "alias" isn't The Master-Doctor; it's "The Doctor". Script names are okay, but we must be careful about not assuming too much about the in-universe grounding of names thusly derived. The Master-Doctor threatened Yaz" is fine; but "the Master-Doctor was the alias adopted by the Spy Master when he…" isn't quite right, and even "As the Master-Doctor, the Spy Master…" is misleading. One really wishes The Doctor (The Power of the Doctor) were less of a non-starter. How do we write this blighter's lede?

(My entirely unjustifiable gut instinct is to wait until an in-universe source (probably one of those reference book thingummies…) directly uses "the Master-Doctor" in-text in a citable way.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

We'll certainly have to use {{conjecture}}. How about "Following the Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration, the Spy Master, as "the Doctor", did XYZ…" or even just "the Spy Master, calling himself "the Doctor""? – n8 (☎) 19:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Haven't read all of the discussion but I must object to the usage of "the Master-Doctor" based on script alone; the officially released script for Power contains a number of discrepancies with the final product, with versions of Cybermen and the fates of characters being changed around. In my eyes, this script is wholly unreliable and should not be used — even conjecturally in the Wiki sense of the term — to name anything. If we decide to have a page on the entity, and another source, even if it just marketing, uses the name, sure, it has merit in being used. But based upon that script? I don't believe it's reliable enough.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

21:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I would imagine that the discrepancies between the script and the finished product are more to do with choices on the day than inaccuracy. I find it wholly more likely that differences between script and finished product happened during filming than that the script is inaccurate, although that is certainly another possibility. But surely it must be fairly common to decide to change things last moment in television production. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 21:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

No, frankly, I don't see anything new here. Everything in Nate's comment seems to be simply a rehashing of previous discussion. At best there seems to be the charge that community consensus upheld the previous closing post and not this new one. But I'm not convinced this is the case. In that prior discussion 9 individuals chimed in after Scrooge. 3 of us asked for it to be relitigated after the Master split but said it was fine until then (myself, Memes, and 66 Seconds). Nate, Liria, Bongo, and Sherlock supported the compromise without that caveat (though perhaps with other comments). An IP user suggested an entirely different approach and Corrie/DiS just talked about how unfair the entire thing was. I just don't see how there's consensus for keeping this approach without the relitigation above. And given the relitigation above Scrooge came to a new conclusion. Not one I'm 100% keen on, mind you. But c'est la vie. I just don't see it, sorry. Najawin ☎ 21:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The new thing is proposing to have a Master-Doctor alias page, which is an entirely different proposal on how to approach the situation relative to the prior proposals of a character page or an event page. It would imply a significantly different page structure, and is worth arguing about on its own terms. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

But this was actually brought up prior. It just got no traction. If anything it's the thing that's T:BOUND out by Talk:The Master/Archive 8. Najawin ☎ 22:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Huh? ctr+f-ing “alias” on Talk:The Master/Archive 8 yields only my own mention of "alias pages like Harold Saxon" — and that was a different thing entirely (I was mentioning alias pages right alongside Bad Wolf (entity) as examples of a broader class of pages whose precedent the custom thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration event-page could be seen as setting itself). What are you talking about? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 00:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The IP user's comment. It's brought up and gets no traction whatsoever. People just ignore it. Technically there are only two responses after, but it's explicitly brought up as an alternative+additional angle and wasn't brought up, like, weeks later. Discussion just petered out because nobody agreed with the suggestion and we already were okay with the compromise for the time being. Najawin ☎ 00:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Najawin, you're reading your own opinions into the text of the conversation! With sample size of n=1, discussion on that page stopped because I didn't think the IP user had brought up anything new – Scrooge's proposal, which as you describe was ratified by community consensus, already explicitly recommended "something like […] pages about aliases like Harold Saxon"; further citation of Razor and Emil Keller added nothing. (In this light I think your tallying of that IP user's vote should be reconsidered.) So it goes way too far to conclude that "nobody agreed with the suggestion" on this basis. – n8 (☎) 18:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is quite right, Scrooge uses the term "alias", whereas the IP user talks about how these are "personas", and how he embodies "characters".

there's loads more articles making a precedent for deep dives into specific personas (ex: Razor (World Enough and Time), Emil Keller). Sacha talks about his Doctor as being a discrete "character" masking the Master character, which is true in the episode due to the Master acting and dressing different during the time he's the 14th DR. ∴ Master!Doctor could be covered as a regeneration in respect to Jodie and a disguise in respect to Sacha.

If anything it seems to be a suggestion that we should reinterpret our approach to how we treat aliases of the Master, because the suggestion is that they're often not simple aliases. Najawin ☎ 21:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

"Persona" vs "alias" strikes me as a distinction without a difference. The second sentence of Harold Saxon describes the page's topic as a "constructed persona [used] as an alias". And your in media res quote of the IP user carefully omits how they introduced their comment as an elaboration on how "The earlier compromise message mentioned Harold Saxon for a second". – n8 (☎) 16:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Because there are two readings of that? One to either use the page as it exists as a contrast, or one to use it specifically to riff off of. It's irrelevant unless you already buy the other reading. Also, even your quote suggests that there is a distinction between personas and aliases. "constructed persona [used] as an alias" suggests that aliases do not always have associated personas. Najawin ☎ 20:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Right, sorry: a distinction without a difference in regard to our coverage, not in regard to the definitions of the words "alias" and "persona". – n8 (☎) 17:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Death's Champion seems to be a counter example, no? Najawin ☎ 21:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)