Talk:The Master

	Archives: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8

Soon to be unlocked, but don't change section heads please

As noted at Forum:The Master - 1 article#Closing, we're close to restoring this article to a normal state in which people can more or less freely edit it. References to individual incarnations shall now be done through the following templates:

More will be added automatically to this list as they are created. Click on any of these for usage details, but basically the way we'll now connect to this page is to write something like this:

The [[Fourth Doctor]] faced his final challenge: a confrontation with {{Ainley}} atop the [[radio telescope]]. ([[TV]]: ''[[Logopolis (TV story)|]]''

which yields:

The Fourth Doctor faced his final challenge: a confrontation with the Tremas Master atop the radio telescope. (TV: Logopolis)

If you need to make the the capitalised, then type {{Ainley|c}}. These links, be they {{delgado}}, {{Ainley}} or whoever will go directly to the section of this article dealing with that version of the character.

It is therefore extremely important that you do not alter the section headers on this article at all. Change what you want about the text, but please leave the section titles as they are.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  16:39: Sat 17 Nov 2012

Trail of the White Worm/Oseidon Adventure

Just thought i'd mention that this story takes place in the year 1979 not 1976, it's on the cover blurb and mentioned in the story. Cheers :-D 82.26.212.148^{talk to me} 10:23, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

P.S Article is looking good!82.26.212.148^{talk to me} 10:26, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

Can i bump this? I just took a look at the back cover and it definately says 1979. Bruce96 ☎ 12:35, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

Well the article is freely editable now. However, please be mindful of the fact that back cover blurbs are not valid sources. What counts is the actual narrative itself. If you can confirm, by listening to the narrative, that the year is 1979, by all means please change the article.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  18:57: Tue 11 Dec 2012

In-universe block-thing

Gotta say, not a big fan of the huge-annoying-page-breaking-space-taking-in-universe-1990's box. Mainly because it, well, is a huge-annoying-page-breaking-space-taking box. Also it fails to reference Destiny of the Doctors, which annoys me. I don't think the box is really needed, and if it is, then it really doesn't need to be that huge. Also no one has messed with this page or the links in weeks, why is it still locked? OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 01:46, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so looking back, it's not as bad as I thought. However, a note on your new block at the Master... You can't really say "the Big Finish audios" because the Terserus Master appeared in the recent Fourth Doctor series as well (Trail of the White Worm (audio story)...) OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 01:56, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

So you went from hating to kinda liking the sidebar in 10 minutes flat? Colour me confused. User:Shambala108 seemed to rather like it, so I'll be leaving that one in. As for the "It's all about Delgado" block, it's absolutely fair to say that "the Big Finish Master" is always what you're calling the "Tersurus Master", but is in fact just a degenerated form of Delgado. No matter what audio you're talking about, it's always Beevers playing essentially the Keeper of Traken guy.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  02:03: Tue 11 Dec 2012

{{{voice actor}}} variable

I note that the {{{voice actor}}} variable was changed away from Geoffrey Beevers to be Alex Macqueen, with a reasonable interpretation of the variable given in the page history. However, although I understand that reason, it's important to point out a feature of the {{Infobox Individual}} that was not there at launch, but has been there for many months. There's {{{voice actor}}}, which displays as "main voice actor" and {{{other voice actor}}}, which displays as "other voice actors".

In the case of most Time Lords, we've generally opted, by virtue of forum discussion, not to fill in any actor information. This is because we can generally leave the actor stuff to the individual incarnation pages. So we do not want these variables used at all on the Doctor or Romana, for instance.

However, since we've decided to put everything about the Master on one page, there's a need for the infobox to actually include the various actors. In this case — or indeed in the case of any character played by multiple actors — {{{voice actor}}} means what it says on the tin: "main voice actor", i.e., "the one who's performed the role more times than anyone else". {{{other voice actor}}} can then be used for people who are additionally heard on audio in this part.

In the case of Fourth Doctor, there's no need for the {{{voice actor}}} variable at all, because the main voice actor is the same as the main televisual actor. Here, though, it's not so straightforward — and, one could argue, it's not at all clear that the relatively minor televisual actor Geoffrey Beevers would have become the main audio actor.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  19:08: Tue 11 Dec 2012

Intro changes

I thought at first that Crashsnake's changes to the intro were merely grammatical/punctuation maladies, but on closer inspection of the diff, there are significant contentual differences. I understand much of what Crashsnake is trying to do — namely simply reduce the overall size of the lead — but he's introduced a couple of innovations I can't support, and a number of grammatical and punctuation errors that are simply easier to revert than to attempt to integrate. Basically, there wasn't anything actually wrong with what was there before, so it's easier to revert to the base and let Crashsnake try again.

There are only two points of substantive change that Crashsnake made, and I disagree with both of them.

The first graf absolutely should end on "evil". The removal of the line, "Both the Doctor and the High Council agreed that [the Master] was evil" is disagreeable, because it's perhaps the most extraordinary thing about the Master. There are very few beings the Doctor has ever described as actually, literally, no-euphamism-involved, evil. It should be the thing we lead with — especially because it's literally true from several different scripts involving several different Doctors.

The removal of the line "or perhaps because it was simply in the Doctor's nature to try and heal people" is understandable because it appears to be speculation. However it is the Master's speculation in The Sound of Drums, it is the apparent truth of Last of the Time Lords, and it's explicitly something Ten says to Simm in The End of Time.

czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  19:40: Tue 11 Dec 2012

Main Actor?

For characters who have had different actors portraying them, what is this wiki's policy on the actor or actress that goes in the main portrayal box? Is it the person who plays them longest, the person who plays them first, or the person who is currently playing the role? For example, Roger Delgado is listed in the box on The Master's page right now and he was the first actor to play him, but Johm Simm most recently portrayed him and Anthony Ainley played him the longest. (Similarly on Kate Stewart's page, Beverly Cressmen is listed as the main actress, even though Jemma Redgrave played her most recently.) Mewiet ☎ 04:27, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

It's who played him the most (Time, not years, so Delgado may match Ainley. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 12:54, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Paul McGann

When was the master played by Paul McGann? I don't see any mention of it on his page. Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 17:08, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

When the Master was trying to swap bodes with the Doctor for a few frames Paul McGann indeed played the Master . 139.55.37.109^{talk to me} 19:10, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

That's too trivial to mention in the infobox. —Josiah Rowe ☎ 03:13, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Dominion Doubts

I believe the "Dominion Doubts" section needs to be edited, but since it is unclear I thought it should be discussed here. But the fact that the Master is using the TARDIS formerly belonging to Goth indicates that it can't be set before The Deadly Assasin. Certainly at the very least it must be stated that it is not a pre-Delgado incarnation (the fact that the Master knows the code string that refers to some of his UNIT era stories also backs this up). 219.90.190.144^{talk to me} 16:19, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Please provide details — quotations from the script, if possible — about how we know it's Goth's TARDIS.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  17:56: Sat 16 Feb 2013

Early incarnations

There's a suggestion that Alex Macqueen could be playing a pre-Delgado version of The Master. But I seem to recall that there *are* no pre-Delgado incarnations, and that the idea of "The Dark Path" is that the Master's future incarnations are used up trying to escape from.. what is it, a black hole? Soemthing like that, anyway. Unfortunately this is one of those hard-to-track down books.... Hopefully somebody in the know can comment? 86.168.250.252^{talk to me}

Don't know about the rest of your post, but the first sentence is a violation of Tardis:Spoiler policy. You cannot post any information about unaired/unpublished stories anywhere on the wiki (with the exceptions of the Series 7 page and Howling:The Howling). Shambala108 ☎ 03:43, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

After the end of The Name of the Doctor (series7 e14), is the Doctor also the Master?

The Master's fate in The End of Time

Just because the Master was engulfed by the same white light as Rassilon and the Time Lords in The End of Time when the Time Lords were sent back into the end of the Time War doesn't necessarily mean that the Master was sent with them, especially since the Master wasn't using the link to stay out of the time lock as the Time Lords were in the first place. Saying that the Master did indeed go with them into the Time War as well just because he was last seen being engulfed by the same white light, would be like saying that at the end of the universe humanity used the Cybermen's technology to become the Toclafane just because the Toclafane's energy bolts looked similar to the Cybus Cybermen's in The Army of Ghosts/Doomsday. TroopDude ☎ 18:54, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Aliases

I've noticed a tendency of The Master to go by aliases that employ the word Master in differ languages. In the The Daemons, the Master poses as Vicar Magister and in The Time Monster (TV story) he goes by Professor Phasciluz[not sure of spelling, but it's Greek, as Jo Grant points out. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tepheris (talk • contribs) .

Thascalos, I believe. These are pointed out on the wiki on the list of aliases of the Master, rather than the main character page. -- Tybort (talk page) 18:08, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

"Light at the End" placement?

Does anyone have a sense of where Light at the End fits in the Master's timeline? The Master is played by Beevers, but does he fit in the gap between Deadly Assassin and Keeper of Traken, or is it the "Tremas lost" version from Dust Breeding and Master? (I haven't listened to Mastermind, so I'm not clear on whether the post-Mastermind incarnation is an option or not.) In Light at the End he pulls the Doctors from multiple points in the Doctor's timestream, so we can't go from that. Thoughts? —Josiah Rowe ☎ 05:34, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

Answering my own question: on re-listening, I caught the detail that the Master says he hasn't met Nyssa yet, so clearly it's between Deadly Assassin and Keeper of Traken for him. Will add to article accordingly. —Josiah Rowe ☎ 05:23, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Moreover, it is explicitly stated that he crosses his own timeline. This might a key to re-read the whole of the appearances of the "Beevers" in the audios...--HarveyWallbanger ☎ 10:43, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

Why didn't the Doctor recognise the Master in Utopia?

In The Sound of Drums (TV story) the Doctor says he can tell if someone is a Time Lord. Why didn't he recognise the master in Utopia (TV story)? Was it to do with the master not realising he was a time lord? Tankingmage ☎ 14:26, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

That is pretty much what we are to assume. The chameleon arch in the fob watch basically hid the Master's "Time Lord-ness" from the Doctor until the watch was opened. Shambala108 ☎ 17:34, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

Only two paths after Survival, not three?

I know this is a big ol' can of worms, but it seems like a bit of an over-complication. While both Dust Breeding and Prime Time contradict the Virgin New Adventures, they don't really contradict each other.

First off, it seems like Big Finish's Ace dramas are meant to link with the BBC Ace novels. Dust Breeding directly references Storm Harvest while Prime Time itself references the "Daleks on Kar-Charrat" from The Genocide Machine.

Second, one story shows the Master escaped from Cheetah World but still in his Trakenite body. The other story shows the Master after his Trakenite body has been destroyed. The two are not incompatible.

So I'm really wondering why these are treated as incompatible stories when they seem to be a part of the same continuum? Constonks ☎ 05:35, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Can we get rid of these info boxes?

Okay, for a long time we've had these long, boring, out-of-place info boxes in certain sections of this page which address stories from an out-of-universe perspective. One question.

Why?

Okay, a few things that I would like to note. When we first created these, they stretched out the pages we put them on and were a total eye sore. They ripped apart any organization that the page had picture-wise, and cut the page so strangely that you would rather go read something else then look at it for another second. That was then. Now, with the new wiki system, it's far worse, because the multiple boxes push each other around even further down the page. Go look at the Dominion doubt box. Half-way through the page. A useless waste of space for a box that has little point.

I might have liked these a little bit if they were used when they should be (Dominion actually isn't that bad info wise), but they're mostly not. Making sense of the 1990s contains information which could very easily be transferred into "accounts" and "sources" in an easily read-able fashion. Instead, the author has slammed a college paper into a very slim table, which is both unattractive an unnecessary.

Also they're amazingly informal. "Susan turned the TCE on the Delgado Master in his TARDIS — and it fried him. Extra crispy." Really? Really? "Extra crispy?" Every time I read that sentence I head-but my computer. Every time. It's not just that they are informal, but they are also not funny.

So, in conclusion, the boxes are out-of-place, unattractive, and insanely informal and unfunny. At very least, the only one not entirely pointless or filled with very specific interpretations of one source is the Dominoes box, the rest (and probably even that) need to go. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 18:37, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I've never been a fan of the boxes, but I saw how, in the case of Dominion, it could clarify how that incarnation of the Master is at odds with the timeline. I 100% think that we should revert back to a "account/source" method like you suggest, but maybe we should wait until next month for clarification on the MacQueen front, with his appearance in Dark Eyes 2, which hopefully might shed some more light on things. I think we're better approaching this with an "everything must be changed" stance rather than leaving one of these silly boxouts still in place. --Revan\Talk 18:51, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Well, considering how much work went into creating the boxes, I don't think it's helpful or useful to use words like "obnoxious, unfunny, boring" or "silly". I do agree that they mess up the look of the page by squashing text and photos to the left. However, I think the information they contain is pretty important. We do need a way to let new users know how/where we've placed various incarnations of the Master; otherwise, we would have to constantly revert edits. There has to be a way to include this info without compromising the look of the page. But I agree with Revan that we ought to wait until the new release comes out. Shambala108 ☎ 20:40, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Didn't mean to offend the creators of the boxes. I agree that the content in the boxes is important, but that that information could very easily be converted to an in-universe context or be put in the behind-the-scenes section once the tone was corrected. It in no way needs to be where it is.

And holding off the discussion for now is fine. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 22:10, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

I can't see anything in-universe to take from the "It's all about Delgado" box. "Making sense of the 1990s" explains things from a behind the scenes perspective because of the confusion. That said, the "one account" stuff is already present, so I'm not sure what you guys are suggesting to revert or transfer to the in-universe writing. Not sure either way about how to approach "Dominion doubt", but again, the in-universe text explicitly specifies it's after Ainley but before the Time War Master. -- Tybort (talk page) 23:00, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Darwin has indeed made these sidebars more difficult to work with. They worked better in a fixed-width environment. Their CSS needs to be adjusted to make them work in this changed environment, but as they currently affect only one page, they were kinda low on the repair list.

Far from pointless, sidebars — they aren't infoboxes — are a standard convention of publishing. Pick up any magazine or newspaper and you will see a sidebar — information not written in the same voice as the main article which amplifies a point made in the main article. Such sidebars are often deliberately written in a lighter style so that it's clear to the reader that they are conveying a different type of information. And lest you think that it's not something that applies to digital media, here's a BBC news report published today that contains a sidebar.

Sidebars are a tried and true piece of design. The fact that they are unusual for this wiki doesn't make them "stupid", "ugly" or — what was the word that's sine been removed from this page? — "obnoxious".

I strongly disagree that the information could be conveyed as effectively using the "one account suggests" routine that we typically do. The history of the Master is really confusing at certain points: post-Frontier in Space, post-Survival and now around Dominion. We need to help our readers understand these trouble spots. And, I think, this is one case that where clarity does not come from sticking only to an in-universe voice. Furthermore, I think it's important that we don't bury this information in the BTS section, but put it close to where the body of the article starts to get confusing.

It's critical that we prominently explain why this wiki thinks the Delgado incarnation includes the versions played by Pratt and Beevers. That assertion is not at all clear to even the moderately knowledgeable fan. And yet it's a really important concept to get your head around, if you're going to understand how to read and edit articles on the the wiki relative to the Master. Equally the place of the Dominion master is obscure. But, like Revan suggests, we might soon be able to drop that box altogether, if new narratives give us greater certainty.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  23:49: Sun 05 Jan 2014

I strongly agree. Not only cringe inducing, unfunny and amateurish they are very jarring and give far too much emphasis to the least seen or heard, least popular elements of Doctor Who rather than the mass media mainstream Who series. It reeks of fanwank.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flying Tiger Comics (talk • contribs) .

Flying Tiger Comics, regardless of the tone of these sidebars, we are not getting rid of them just because they give emphasis to an unpopular or not widely seen or out of print element of the DWU. Especially when the whole point of them is a result of how confusing and messy the post-Frontier in Space and pre-Utopia and The Sound of Drums history of the Master's timeline is. It's not like the Seventh and Eighth Doctors have any clearer history or continuity following their television runs.

The policies of this site assert that Doctor Who has no canon, and that we treat prose, comic, audio and televised Doctor Who on equal terms. That is, we give equal weight to the New Adventures, Mike Tucker and Robert Perry's novels, John Peel's novels, Big Finish and Doctor Who Magazine. (See T:CAN, T:IU and T:NPOV) -- Tybort (talk page) 14:44, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Separate articles for the Master's incarnations

Why dont we have seperate articles for the master's incarnations like we do romana's – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.97.200.18 (talk).

This site's policy page T:MASTER (via discussion on Forum:The Master - 1 article) explains the reasoning. Basically, we have no distinct way of disambiguating or numbering the incarnations to make separate articles, especially for non-performance Masters.

We do, however, have a special form of template for each "type" of Master, like {{Delgado}}, {{Frontier}} and so forth (as well as instructions on how to operate these templates) which is outlined on T:MASTER. -- Tybort (talk page) 13:30, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I have reverted the edits made by user:41.133.47.166 to this page and Magnus, The War Games and the War Chief. Several months ago this user tried to make his point on several talk pages, but failed to provide convincing evidence per this wiki's rules. I reverted the edits and suggested he try the forums; as he did not do so, I've reverted his edits again. Shambala108 ☎ 16:22, January 29, 2014 (UTC)

Removed from personality section

When he turned into the human John Smith, the Master was still somehow deeply aware of his dark nature and troubled by it. As his true self, this incarnation had a far more darker and evil side to him than most of his other selves. He seemed to enjoy being mysterious about his true identity and enjoyed giving his enemies riddles as to who he truly was. Also compared to his other selves, this incarnation was far calmer and well spoken, which made him sound more sinister. (AUDIO: Master)

While we can have some leeway in calling him "evil" unlike other pages of this wiki due to all of the quotes in the lead, "sinister" and "evil side" doesn't clearly explain his personality very well.

This Master, unlike his successors, seems to want the respect and approval of a physician, this is evident when hallucinating his greatest fear, he imagined a giant version of the Doctor towering over him and laughing. (TV: The Sea Devils)

I've not seen The Sea Devils, but this sounds either awkwardly-worded or outright speculation. -- Tybort (talk page) 22:31, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen The Sea Devils in a while, but it sounds more like The Mind of Evil when his greatest fear was revealed to be the Doctor. But it doesn't matter, because you're absolutely right, it's complete speculation to connect "a physician" with the Doctor. Shambala108 ☎ 22:42, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Question

What's with the giant picture?!? --Reikson ☎ 06:43, March 2, 2014 (UTC)

Adding MacQueen to the Picture

Now that Alex Macqueen has appeared as The Master three times, and probably more soon, could we add his image to the rolling picture at the top? Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 20:34, March 30, 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please fix the image sizes?

I apologize if this has already been done but could someone fix the image sizes they are distracting and blocks up a huge portion of the page.MrAnonymous ☎ 05:19, April 21, 2014 (UTC)MrAnonymous

I'm not seeing a problem. Could you be more specific? Shambala108 ☎ 14:13, April 21, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem either, and what size should they be and what size are they supposed to be? I always make images 200pxl Masterpwn ☎ 14:41, April 21, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that I was looking at the page with Internet Explorer and I guess it made the pictures look massive. I just looked at it with fire fox and they were fine.MrAnonymous ☎ 15:39, April 21, 2014 (UTC)MrAnonymous

Yeah, wikia decided a little while back that it would no longer support IE, so if you use it, things won't necessarily look right. (I had to stop using IE for wikis because it would always crash.) Shambala108 ☎ 16:56, April 21, 2014 (UTC)

Alex McQueen Chronology

Just something I was wondering after I listened to Dark Eyes 2 and Unit: Dominion. We know from Dark Eyes 2 that the McQueen version of the Master was saved from "his predicament" from the Time Lords, and given an mission, but we don't know when this mission takes place in his Timeline in relation to Dominion. It could take place afterwards for all we know, and not before, as this wiki states. Surely by Occam's Razor we should assume that since Dominion was released first, it happened first, for both the Doctor and the Master. --89.101.153.65^{talk to me} 10:53, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

Why is Anthony Ainley listed as main actor other actors have played him for equally significant periods of time most notably his original actor Roger Delgado so I don't see why they should be listed as just Other TV actors.

17 incarnations

In the bottom of the page it is said that "That hasn't stopped at least one non-narrative source from trying, though. The 2010 edition of REF: Doctor Who: The Visual Dictionary indicates that the Master played by John Simm is the seventeenth form. According to this theory, Derek Jacobi would be the sixteenth, Eric Roberts the fifteenth, and Anthony Ainley/Gordon Tipple the fourteenth. However, there's no narrative evidence to support any of the Visual Dictionary claims." I actually think that this is true, given that in the beginning of Doctor Who: The Movie, the Seventh Doctor narrates and he tells that the Master had used up all of his regenerations, having lastly been Exterminated by the Daleks. Given that a Time Lord have 13 incarnations this would mean that Anthony Ainley/Gordon Tipple IS the 14th, Eric Roberts IS the 15th, Derek Jacobi IS the 16th, which would mean that John Simm indeed IS the 17th. I want to hear your opinions on this, as I see this as the truth. I always say that the John Simm one is the 17th. --DCLM ☎ 21:06, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

Gordon Tipple

If Paul has a box for his brief moment as the Master, Gordon deserves to be properly listed in a box of his own too.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.172.143.100 (talk).

The name 'Koschei'

The article states that the master was originally called 'Koschei'. (I see in the Archivessomeone else brought this up earlier, but it was ignored, but still...) The article then goes on to use the word 'Koschei' approximately 50 times in the first few paragraphs. Things from stories like The End of Time (TV story), The Glorious Dead, Master (audio story) etc. are attributed to 'Koschei'. "Koschei looked into the untempered schism", "Koschei left Gallifrey" etc. It is overkill for somone trying to convince others(and probably him/herself) that the Master was originally called 'Koschei'.

However, this is all completely wrong. In the novel The Dark Path, the Second Doctor learns that there is another TARDIS where he is. He panics, fearing that his people(not yet named 'Time Lords') have come to hunt him down. Later, he learns that the owner of this TARDIS is called 'Koschei'....and continues to panic thinking it's just one of his people sent to hunt him down. Later, only after having 'Koschei' described to him, does he start to think it could be his old friend. And it's only when they meet face-to-face does he realise that 'Koschei' is indeed his old friend. His introductions to Jamie also make this clear beyond any resonable shadow of doubt that Koschei is a new name for this character as of the Dark Path, a name that the Doctor is totally unfamiliar with.

Now, no doubt, some people will immediately point to Divided Loyalties as supposed "proof". Now, let's see....Adric, Nyssa and Tegan all have nightmares where real events from their past are mixed up with fiction. These nightmares are clearly upsetting and confusing them. Then, the Doctor falls asleep, the next Chapter is clearly entitled DREAMING in big bold letters. Within this dream a character called 'Koschei' appears. Various other things that totally and utterly contradict established continuity occur, including various self-contradictory events. After this Chapter, the Doctor wakes up, and remarks on the "weird nightmare" that he has just had. Shortly after this, it is revealed that both a)the Doctor and his companions are within The Celestial Toymaker's Dreamscape and b)The Celestial Toymaker states outright that he is the one responsible for giving them those anguishing nightmares.

Now, based off that, we have two usages of 'Koschei'. One a real event where the Second Doctor has never heard the name 'Koschei' before, and the other a "Weird nightmare" full of self-contradictory oddities where a character called Koschei appears within what is unambiguously shown to be a dream, and only within this unambiguous dream sequence.

And yet, Tardis Data Core not only states that The Master was originally called 'Koschei', but even deceptively tries to make it look as though William Hughes in The Sound of Drums (TV story), the flashback sequence in Master (audio story), and various references in stories like The Time Monster (TV story), The Glorious Dead, The Claws of Axos (TV story) etc. were all referring to and/or showing a character called 'Koschei'! "Koschei' does not appear in The Sound of Drums etc. In fact, 'Koschei' does not even appear in Divided Loyalties, because that is unquestionably a nightmare that The Celestial Toymaker creates for the Doctor. The one, real occurrence of the Master as 'Koschei' in in The Dark Path, where it is also unambiguously clear that Koschei is a new alias that the Doctor has never heard before The Dark Path.

As long as this article continues to state that the Master was "originally called Koschei", and the word 'Koschei' is used dozens of times in the opening section, then this article is at best simply wrong and at worst someone pushing their personal beliefs on everyone else. Master of Spiders ☎ 06:28, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

Is this actually necessary?

"Mister Saxon", meanwhile, is an anagram of "Master No. Six". Although there is no clear evidence to indicate that this was intentional, John Simm was the sixth actor (not including Derek Jacobi) to portray the character of the Master.

So, there's no indication that the production team ever thought of it, but more importantly it is not even true. "Mister Saxon" has other anagrams such as 'smears toxin', 'senators mix', 'matrix noses', 'extra is moss', 'Stream in sox' and 'Rani most sex'. Any of which could be said to be far more relevant than something that was never the intention of the people who made the show, and more than that isn't even true in the first place. Master of Spiders ☎ 09:05, October 9, 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. The key sentence is "there is no clear evidence to indicate that this was intentional". Therefore it is not relevant to the article. Shambala108 ☎ 14:06, October 9, 2014 (UTC)

Woman in the Shop

Has it been overtly implied that the Mistress was the one who gave Clara the Doctor's phone number, or is that still just speculation at this point? –Nahald ☎ 04:22, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

(Spoilers)Dark Water

(Just a heads up this is Pcthomas2. So if there's an issue just shoot it to my talk page.) Just wondering, are we going to merge the Missy article with this page? I mean she even said who she was.

This issue is currently being addressed at Thread:164874. Shambala108 ☎ 14:11, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

Originally called Koschei?

With all the 'Missy' editing going on, someone has reinserted that the Master was "originally called Koschei". This has been definitively debunked as fanon some time ago. And yet, it keeps coming back. However the article is now locked. Master of Spiders ☎ 08:59, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

References to the Master as being called "Koschei" appear in PROSE: The Dark Path, The Face of the Enemy, and Divided Loyalties, all of which are considered valid sources of in-universe information by this wiki. — Rob T Firefly - Δ ∇ - 22:16, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

To him being called that yes, but the contested part is it being his original name. JagoAndLitefoot ☎ 22:43, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. The point is that in The Dark Path, it is explicitly stated that when the Doctor learns that one of his people is in the area, he panics, feeling that it's someone come to take him, and put him on trial. He later learns that this other one of his people is called 'Koschei' and he still panics, not knowing who it is, but again fearing he's come to collect him. The name 'Koschei' is used several times in front of the Doctor. It's only when he comes face-to-face with this 'Koschei' that he realises who 'Koschei' is, and it's clear in the introductions, particularly when the Doctor introduces his best friend to Jamie, that 'Koschei' is a new name for this character. So, the first time that the Doctor has ever heard the name 'Koschei', and specifically when it is referred to the character we know best as 'The Master' is in a story set during Season 5. Over 200 years after the Doctor has left Gallifrey. And please check the title of the Chapter of Divided Loyalties where the name 'Koschei' is sued, as well as the Fifth Doctor's comments about this sequence in the next Chapter. Master of Spiders ☎ 04:39, November 3, 2014 (UTC)

Yep, so this discussion has been ignored. It's actually quite laughable that someone feels the need to push the incorrect fanon information that the Master was "originally called Koschei". Master of Spiders ☎ 12:05, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

Have some patience. You have waited a day since your last post. Some discussions have been rolling on for over a year without activity. The users involved in this discussion may not have logged on since you published your reply. --Skittles the hog - talk 13:37, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

well you see, the article used to state that the Master was "originally called Koschei". This was discussed, and then those three inaccurate words were removed. Some time later, the whole 'Missy' issue came up, causing some disruptive editing. The article was then locked because of the 'Missy' issue. And then, after it was locked, the inaccurate "originally called Koschei" nonsense was reinserted. So yeah, that is pushing a piece of fanon as fact, and it has been discussed before. Master of Spiders ☎ 16:06, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you have already said that. My reply was just pointing out that you've waited one solitary day before saying "this discussion has been ignored". It hasn't, it's ongoing, and you need to allow time for it pan out.--Skittles the hog - talk 16:30, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

MOS, you base your disbelief of the Master's original name entirely upon The Dark Path, and the Doctor's reaction to the name. What do you make of the Master's reaction to the name in The Face of the Enemy? According to my read of the book, the Master suggests to Ian that he was indeed originally called "Koschei". Would you be okay with the phraseology, "whose original name may have been Koschei"?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  17:48: Tue 04 Nov 2014

There is nothing in Face of the Enemy that says that the Master was originally called Koschei. Only that the master was called Koschei around the time of The Dark Path, and that the alt-universe Master is still called Koschei at the time of Face of the Enemy. It's said that The Dark Path was the defining event that led to him being The Master(which actually contradicts several other stories, but that's not the point here). Only it never says his original name was Koschei. Again, the only thing we know about the name Koschei is that he was calling himself that at the time of The Dark Path, and that it was not a name that the Second Doctor recognised. Master of Spiders ☎ 09:26, November 6, 2014 (UTC)