Talk:The Master

Keep calm and stay focused.

Please abide by our discussion policy and be nice to other editors in this discussion. Remember: this talk page is only for discussing the editing of the attached article. Take speculation to The Howling, our general discussion forum. Messages not having to do with the improvement of the article may be deleted.

Time Lords a race?

Are the Time Lords a race, cause some sources e.g. REF: Doctor Who: The Encyclopedia says that they are but various sources mentioning before the Time War e.g. DW: The Invasion of Time seem to suggest that they are more of a society? Which of it is it to be? Or is it not certain?

Also is under the Infobox Race category is a Female Time Lord called a Time Lady because humans are sometimes called Man and a male human is also called a man but women is not a species name so is Time Lady?--Skittles the hog 19:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources seem to indicate that not all Gallifreyans are Time Lords, but rather only a relatively small percentage of Gallifreyans are actually Time Lords. This would seem to still be canon in the new series, as the Doctor said in The Doctor's Daughter that Time Lords are "so much more than that... They're a shared code, a shared suffering." (Slight paraphrase.)--TheOmnius 05:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Other things

This page needs to be edited to fit more into the Whoniverse POV discussed at the Panopticon, and also to include links to other pages. (Would do it myself but busy with my own edits.)--Freethinker1of1 11:25, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)

Removed "Unfortunately, the misconceived" We cant start to make judgements on the quality of the stories as everyone here is going to have different opinions on the issues and we should strive for some objectivity--Amxitsa 13:09, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)

Agreed. Was going to mention that in my earlier comment, but forgot. --Freethinker1of1 13:37, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)

Not that I'm trying to confuse matters but is Legacy of the Daleks really the Masters last story. I havent actually read it but I thought that it was set just before Deadly Assassin from the Masters perspective. Should the last story be the final story from the Masters own perspective or the last one from the Doctors? --Amxitsa 15:08, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Last from the Doctor's, I'd say; after all, virtually all the characters will be meeting the Doctor in a different order.Ben Standeven 04:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should we put sub-titles like: The early years for Delgado, the end of a lifetime? for peter pratt/geoffrey beevers apperaces, a new body? for anthony ainley and so on so we can categorize it well?--GingerM 16:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the table, what media does actors include?--GingerM 16:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've revised the page to address recent questions. As for the one on media, since Sir Derek Jacobi is the only actor to not portray the Doctor on television, I saw no reason to put him in a separate category. Anyone clicking on the individual links to the respective actor entries (once they're written, of course) can find out in which capacitiy or form the role was played. The page on the actual character should concentrate more on the Master as he would be described in an information extract accessed by someone living in the Doctor Who universe. Outside the table, the behind-the-scenes stuff should be reserved for the pages on the actors and the individual stories. --Freethinker1of1 20:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As the page implies, is the Gordon Tipple portrayal of the Master in the TV Movie meant to be The Master in Tremas's body or is it meant to be a new body, through another takeover / regeneration?--GingerM 14:07, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The Eight Doctors might explain this. I don't know the answer myself. You could try to find out on Whoniverse.org--***Stardizzy*** 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the new adventures, the Gordon Tipple Master is not the Ainley Master. He is described as looking somewhat like Basil Rathbone. Luckily Gordon Tipple does have a similarity to Rathbone. The Gordon Tipple Master first appears in First Frontier. The Valeyard 14:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Would like to split this article up

Initital thoughts

Suggested sections:

General overview

One each for the main incarnations:
- Roger Delgado Master
- The decayed Master
- Anthony Ainley Master
- Decayed Master two (from the Big Finish audios)
- Eric Roberts Master
- The Doctor Who Magazine comics Master who fought the Eighth Doctor (again)
- The Shalka Master

(it gets pretty complicated, for instance the New Adventures introduced one incarnation and though he only appeared in two books, ithink he regenerated at least once.)

Alt. universe Masters
Other

Second thoughts

Keep most of the above in own sections, give the following their own articles:

Delgado Master
Anthony Ainley/Tremas Master
Eric Roberts Master
Shalka Master (not major in terms of the universe, it just would help as far as differiating this version from the "default" main universe version)

--***Stardizzy*** 16:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but how should we structure the titles to keep them in-universe? "Original Master", "Second Master", etc? But then again, the Anthony Ainley Master wasn't the Master's true second incarnation... ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 16:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

how about, for the Delgado Master, "The Master (UNIT years)". Ainley "The Master (Tremas)". Eric Roberts "The Master (morphant)". morphant means the snake thing the Master had turned into that possess people. --***Stardizzy*** 21:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something to imply the species? You know, how he was originally just a Time Lord, then a Time Lord possessing a Trakenite, then a Morphant possessing a Human. Azes13 02:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe a number of EU stories have gone with the idea that the morphant is actually yet another globby form of Skarosian life into which the Master transferred his consciousness... not sure how this chimes with what's actually shown on-screen in the movie but it may have implications for the revision you suggest. (Hmm, the wiggly line button doesn't work on this computer. Sorry. - Gai-jin)

The Master is back!

Excellent, this is the first time I've seen him...looks like the next two episodes are going to be pretty good! Anyway, onto the article...does anyone have a picture of Proffesor Yana or The 'John Simm' Master? It would be useful... 82.46.212.142 20:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Joker1138^{(The Hub)} File:Daleknew.jpg

Alright, thank you! 82.46.212.142 20:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Different Master pages

Since there is more than one Master incarnation shouldn't we have different pages for the Master's incarnations.--The 10th Doctor 00:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

i thought that User:Captain-One

I think the general consensus is that the Master's individual pages would be too short. For example, the Derek Jacobi Incarnation's section is individually only 3-4 paragraphs long, including speculation, and Eric Roberts' section is only 2!. --86.166.160.20 19:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, how come this article is mostly compiled of information on John Simm's version of the Master? There's barely any information filled out about Delgado or Ainley's characters, even though, as a general overview of the person, their takes have a lot of information to offer. Most of the references in this article come from the new series. I see that their information was put into separate articles, but was perhaps too much taken away from this original article?--Sudipal 04:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

quicky

How is Koschei pronounced User:Captain-One

Have a look at Koschei (wikipedia page) which gives various spellings (which should give a guide to pronunciation. --Tangerineduel 16:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Under the Stairs" Short Story

Where was this story printed? I can't find a reference to it anywhere except here and Wikipedia, and neither sites provide a source or anything. --86.166.160.20 19:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://cmm-chrismckeon.blogspot.com/ --Stardizzy2 19:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that explains why it's been removed. Thank you!--86.138.211.192 19:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does although this article seems to be plagued by fan fiction --Dark Lord Xander 06:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

created new article called The Master (Tremas)

I finally got around to doing it. I cut-and-pasted part of the main article dealing with the Season 18-Season 26 vesion of the Master into its own article and revised it to make it much better (edited, corrected mis-spellings, etc.). it still doesn't have any information on Planet of Fire, though. --Stardizzy2 19:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

please note the articles on specific incarnations

The Master (UNIT years), a.k.a. the original (this article needs filling out, by the way)
The Master (Tersurus), a.k.a. the crispy crunch Master
The Master (Tremas), a.k.a. the '80's Master
Yana
The Master (Harold Saxon) (self-explanatory, I hope)

you do not need to recapitulate the histories of these incarnations in the main article. hint hint. --Stardizzy2 18:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Master (Bruce)

Should we have an article for the Eric Roberts Master?

I've done a bit for it, but it needs to be reviewed by someone with more knowledge of The Eight Doctors because I haven't read it and I'm not sure about the whole deathworm thing.

The Master was executed on Skaro but survived thanks to a deathworm. While his ashes were being returned to Gallifrey on the Doctor's TARDIS, the Master escaped in deathworm form and caused the TARDIS to crash-land in San Francisco in 1999. The Master soon possessed the body of a human ambulance driver named Bruce.

--The Traveller 14:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the incarnation could use an entry, sure, though I think that the entry you posted could use a little work. (I think that the comic The Fallen and The Eight Doctors differ on what to call the "snake" version of the Master if I remember correctly, BTW. the production team of the TV Movie called it a "morphant" and I think "The Fallen" went with that. --Stardizzy2 18:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Doctor in Inferno Reality?

The section for 'Alternate Versions of the Master' states that the Inferno Koschei is being tortured by order of the Inferno Doctor. This doesn't seem to be indicated at all in the novel -- and also, I'm not sure 'vivisected' was the appropriate word there, but that latter might just be me. If I'm wrong, could someone tell me where in the novel that is? Or is it in Inferno itself?--Hexiva 10:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

When Ian, the Brig and the Master come upon Koschei it's on page 239-241 of The Face of the Enemy which has all the information about what the alternate people have done to him. It's difficult to say whether it's actually vivesection or just extreme torture/surgery. Across those pages there's suggestion of it, but it's not implicit so perhaps a rewrite might be needed to make it clear what happened to him. --Tangerineduel 17:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I know where in the book the description of what's been done to Koschei is. I was just unsure of the wording. It's the fact that this is being done by the Doctor that doesn't seem to be supported by the novel. --Hexiva 01:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

either of you should do a revision then. I probably added that part myself based on online summaries. I don't have a copy of that novel myself. --Stardizzy2 19:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Koschei Real name

Although this wiki does meld the TV and expanded continuities together, with a major character such as the Master, we should try and emphasize the fact that the Koschei name is not something that has ever been discussed on TV. Just as if a novel ever revealed the Doctor's real name. I've added a paragraph to Behind the Scenes, which might be sufficient, but maybe a footnote or a reference to the name being "unconfirmed" might also help a bit. 23skidoo 15:40, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Um...no. Why exactly should the TV override the novels, audios, comics when it's only over-riding the lack of knowledge? It's not unconfirmed, The Dark Path clearly states what it is. If we start down the path of stating that things that haven't been discussed on TV are somehow 'less' than other things we're going to call into question a majority of this wiki. Spin-off media doesn't fall into a "grey area" as far as canon, see Tardis:Canon policy. --Tangerineduel 16:14, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

The wording should be more clear about Koschei being from some novels, it may turn out that that was his name, it may also turn out that it wasn't. The name Koshei should be used sparingly or you just might find egg all over your face if Steve Moffet takes a different stand...

Other Masters

I think maybe the Old Master from the beginning of the TV movie and the Young Master from the flashback in Sound of Drums should be included in the photo. I know that the Old Master may be the same one as Tremas, but there is no evidence to suggest this. I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! Bigredrabbit 21:14, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

U know, In The Last of the Time Lords, i think the Master knew he was going to be revived when he was shot by his wife..., and mocked the Doctor by pretending to actually die for good. Sclera1 02:29, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Additional Note

Can someone please add to the bit regarding the Master/Doctor psychic link that the Master acted jubilant and vindicated once he discovered someone else could hear the drums? This seems a pretty important point that was omitted from the page, as it defined the John Simm master, he was no longe "mad" but acting with a purpose once he found instructions from the drums - 121.44.185.43 11:54, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

More than this, I think the entire paragraph about the "Sound of Drums worsening because of his time as the human Professor Yana" may be debunked by "The End of Time", when both the Doctor, both the Master, imply a deeper link between the increasingly compelling "call of the drums" and the upcoming "end of time". So, it could be possible that the UNIT-Times Master already felt the drumming, but with a far more manageable compulsion since he was, relativistical speaking, more distant to the "End of Time", an event that, in his own timeline, would happen only after five "regenerations" (in the really unproper sense of the word that comes with having possessed a Trakenite and a morphant in between) later. Since, by now, the "drummings as insanity induced by the Chameleon Arc" and the "drummings as a mental equivalent of the Cloister Bell" are both rampant speculations, and January 1th is near, I suggest leaving everything as it is, then, with the official data in hand, rewrite the sentences about the post-"Last of the Time Lords" continuity --217.201.210.49 17:42, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

==time lock==

how did the master break the time lock on the time war and escape to the end of the universe

The master could save the time lords

"Ever since I was a child... I looked into the Vortex and that's when it chose me. The drumming. The call. To war."

―The Master

well I noticed this. When the master was attacking rassilon he walked into the light with them. meaning perhaps the master is back again in the timewar. The timelords could have healed him and time might just be rewritten. Maybe galifrey is no more but what about some timelords that might now be able to survive the war because of the master. Just a thought.... that might mean he is back in the time war. The greatest soldier of the timelords back on galifrey hours before its destruction. He ran away the first time but now hes timelocked inside the war with no choice but to fight. Could the timelords come back, some at least, maybe even galifrey

Doctor Who is moving on, it's in a new era, and Moffat is not continuing things like that. That era is gone and over. Gallifrey is gone, and the Master is gone. He used up the rest of his life energy, and then was sent into the Time War. The fun fact is, if you listen to dialouge, that was the final day of the Time War. Right before the Masster goes back with them, one of the Time Lords screams that Gallifrey is falling now. As soon as they were sent back, the (past) Doctor destroyed them all. That was the last day, and Gallifrey falls near the end of the episode. Let's just accept it.

The Master also redeemed himself, turned good, saved everyone, and sacfacied himself to send them back - where they are destroyed. The era is over, and they're gone forever. The only change of any Time Lords appearing are other survivrors that were not involved in the war. But other than that, the closest thing we will ever get to Gallifrey is a new Gallifrey founded by the Doctor or something, a new establishment in honour of the original. Delton Menace 20:54, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

I've still got a feeling we'll see The Master again. As history has shown us, if there's one thing The Master is really good at it's avoiding death. 24.168.58.64 17:44, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Also, RTD mentioned that he would never kill off any real antagonist. While, RTD is not in charge anymore that means there is a slight, and only slight chance that the Master could come back in one form another.

Stephen Moffet has stated he wouldn't mind bringing the Master back, and John Simm has said he wouldn't mind coming back, so you never know...

the drumming

How does the fact that the Time Lords put the Drums in the Masters head explain the fact that none of the previous masters mentioned it?90.196.215.114 18:50, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't. My theory for why the drumming had never been mentioned before (besides the obvious fact that it wasn't introduced until RTD came up with the idea) has to do with how The Master is always claiming that the drumbeat is constantly getting louder. I like to think that it wasn't until this later point in his life that the drumbeat was loud enough to be of any signifigance. So it could have always been there in the back of his mind growing louder and louder, but I think it wasn't until it reached a certain volume that The Master felt it was worth mentioning. FixtheFernback 20:28, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

The Ten Masters

1. The Koschei Master - Seen in flash-backs in The Sound of Drums, The End of Time and big finish audio, Master appeared in The Missing Adventures, The Dark Path

2. The Original Master - Roger Delgado

3. The Decaying Master - Peter Pratt/Geoffrey Beevers

4. The Tremas Master - Anthony Ainley

5. The Decaying Master 2 - Voiced by Geoffrey Beevers in The Big Finish audios

6. The Rathbone Master - Gordon Tipple, appeared in the Virgin New Adventures, First Frontier, Happy Endings, appeared for about 4 secs in the TV movie

7. The Morphant Master - Eric Roberts

8. The Preacher Master - Appeared in Doctor Who Magazine comic strips, The Road to Hell and The Glorious Dead

9. The Professor Yana Master - Appeared in Utopia, played by Sir Derek Jacobi

10. The Harold Saxon Master - Played by John Simm in The Sound of Drums, Last of The Time-Lords and The End of Time

This list makes a lot of assumptions. I'd never call the kid we saw in The Sound of Drums the "Koschei" Master. And I have no idea where you're getting "The Rathbone Master" from. I mean I know you gave sources, but I don't see how you're connecting First Frontier to the TVM. Big leap of faith to suggest that a writer in 1993/4 was presaging a Master that would occur in a 1996 production fo which he couldn't possibly have had any knowledge. Anyone know what Gordon Tipple actually looks like, anyway? Does he look like Basil Rathbone? Somehow I kinda doubt it. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 08:23, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

The Drumbeat

Unless I am mistaken this article seems to infer that the master didn't have the drum beat until after the time war. This makes little sense as the time lords mention the master having the drum beat before they even put it in his head. It seems to be more of an ontological paradox than a case of the time lords changing history.

Key Life Events Not Schemes

Wouldn't key life events fit the manual of style better than the schemes section? it just seems out of place to me as the info his alredy elaborated on higher up. Revanvolatrelundar 18:05, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Spin off Incarnation Pages

would it be against the manual of style if i created a page for the master that appeared during the virgin new adventures and used the picture from the television movie for the article main pic? as i think the the spin off masters should be included as seperate incarnation with their own pages just like the TV ones. Revanvolatrelundar 12:26, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

The Master page

It recently said the master is gay, but I have changed it back. I have copy and pasted an old code so it could use some cleaning up again when ever someone has the time. keep an eye out for any other pages this person may have destroyed as well. I shall also keep an eye out. Tivis014 2:40, October 21, 2010 (EST)

The master as a title

Is it possible that the Master is just a title? While the old one is gone due to the events of End of Time, could it be possbile that another Time Lord would take that postion up,

The Master is a name that he chose for himself, just like the Doctor chose his name. There are no other Timelords who went by The Master. Even if it was just a title, another Timelord can't take up the position. I don't know if you were paying attention during End of Time, but there are no other Timelords anymore.Icecreamdif 23:37, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Eleven Masters image

File:Eleven Masters.png

...

I uploaded this image of the Eleven seen incarnations of The Master. I think that covers all of them, unless we want to include the first version of Tersurus or the blonde version of Saxon (and maybe the spoof version?). It's based off the Eleven Doctors image so the sizes are all weird, but it's at least consistent between the two.

Is it all right to add to this page?--99.29.140.149 17:40, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead. I created the current one to replace an image that was against this wiki's policy. Thanks for the upload.----Skittles the hog--Talk 17:53, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need all of these pictures of the Master in the main image. I think that it is enough if we just show the main ones that appear in the TV shows. Even if we keep the images from the spinoffs though, we don't really need any of the Masters from the TV Movie apart from the Eric Roberts Master. I always assumed that the Master in the prison at the beginning was supposed to be the Anthony Ainley Master, since the Master couldn't regenerate in his Trakenite body. Even if it is a different Master, he was on screen for less than a minute, and you can't see his face in the picture. The weird ghost snake thing isn't even a real incarnation. It was the same incarnation that was exterminated at the beginning, but in a different form. If we put the snake in that image, then why don't we add in Yana's fob watch. The Master's consciousness was in that, so does that make it an incarnation. And adding in both versions of the Tersurus Master, and the blode Saxon Master would be repetitive. By that logic, all of the Ainley Master's ridiculous disguises should be in their. And The Curse of Fatal Death is non-canon, so that Master should not be in the image. Unless, you want to add all the spoof Doctors to his image.Icecreamdif 23:33, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna side with Icecreamdif, here. I don't think we have a responsibility to put all images of a Time Lord up on a general page about that Time Lord, As on the companion page, I think we can illustrate the concept with three-four images. Especially here. There are only three actors to have played the Master on TV for more than one story. Simm, Ainley and Delgado are the "major" Masters, so they're the only ones that really need to be in the infobox. Or we could go with a more neutral ruling and that, in the case of Time Lords, only the most recent actor to play the role gets to be in the infobox. Or we could go with an equally neutral "first and last actor" role. So a Delgado/Simm split screen pic. Whatever we decide, Icecreamdif has a serious point. You can't take a 250px pic, divide it 11 ways, and have an illustration that parses quickly and cleanly.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">23:52:47 Tue 05 Apr 2011

I think the image should be either just Simm, or just Simm and Delgado. I don't think that we should show all the "major" masters, because it could be open to interpretaion as to who they are. For example, why should Simm be a "major" Master, but not Pratt/Beevers. Both of those Masters were basically in 2 television stories. If we do change the Master's infobox image, then should we also change the Doctor's?Icecreamdif 23:57, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Doctor and Master images should closely approximate each other, or have good reason not too. The reason I put in all 11 images was to disregard any notion of subjectivity in deciding who was a "real" Master (Simm, Delgado?). The Tipple Master is probably not the Ainley Master because we saw how Ainley Master died and became Mr Seta and all that nonsense in the New Adventures novels and Big Finish audio books. I could take or leave the Tipple Master, since it was just a generic regenerative form of his between Mr Seta and Eric Roberts with nothing more to go on. But I think the morphant and child Master (the only positive image of the Master's first incarnation) are very important for an image giving an overview of his different incarnations. The two comic images are also important, to drive the point that this site and this page includes a lot of non-televised stories and different incarnations of the Master have been explored in these stories and are covered equally. There are exactly 11 images, in the *exact same* proportions as on the Doctor image, so their can't be any argument about image viewing or accessibility that wouldn't apply to the Doctor's image equally. Eliminating people for aesthetics here and not there leads to a slippery slope (are we judging on number of appearances? There goes Eric Roberts. On type of appearance? Their goes audiobook equality believers.). Also, The Master and The Doctor are the only two characters who would have an image of this size. Similar characters (Rassilon, Romana), would have much smaller images with only a few images tops. This seems to be the best way to handle articles on characters with regenerative/"face changing" behavior in a completely objective manner.--Tim Thomason 07:47, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Then maybe there should be fewer images for the infobox in both this page, and the Doctor's page. If it was a human character, we wouldn't show images of the person from every stage of their lives. With most characters, we show how they most recently appeared, so this page should just have the Simm Master, and the Doctor's page should just have the Smith Doctor. Obvously, pictures of their other incarnations would appear in the body of the article.Icecreamdif 15:37, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, like above, Delgado and Simm (and Hartnell and Smith) with some kind of arrow pointing to a gallery or the first section below. Or maybe no image at all (or a picture of, I don't know, the Doctor's calling card and the Master's fob watch?). A picture of the most recent image of a person in a regular human being is still a picture of that same person. The Doctor had 11 seperate full-grown versions of himself. The Master has anywhere between 5 and 23 full-grown versions of himself.--75.49.218.60 23:27, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, whilst there have been eleven Doctors, there have only been six Masters. Plus, we don't put the Peter Cushing Doctor on, so we shouldn't have all of them. Not the illustrations or snake one, at least. --BillyWilliam3rd 14:16, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that we are not like wikipedia, we treat most spin off media as canon, therefore the spin off media Masters should be shown on the main image. --Revan\Talk 13:20, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Revan, we should equally show the spin-off Masters. Not so sure about the Deathworm though, is that an incarnation?----Skittles the hog--Talk 16:02, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

Master's age

I know a lot about the Master,but I only have one question:How old is he?

From 76.235.57.29 20:30, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

He went to the Academy with the Doctor, so probably around his age.Icecreamdif 15:38, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Heh, probably not, due to time travel and all. I don't think we have any information to support any age for the Master. It could be anywhere between 50 and 10,000 years (or beyond). He used up all his 13 lives and was a withering corpse on Tersurus... but he also scolded the Doctor for hanging on to his first life too long. He also spent nearly a lifetime as a human (Yana). It's a complete unknown how old the Master is.--Tim Thomason 00:33, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Main image and the template

I am completley against this "Eleven Masters" image. Why have we got the spin-off sones? Or even the eight-year-old Master on it? This is ludicrous. It is because, spin-off media does have equal importance, but not enough to be on the main image. Doctor Who is a television programme, and the Master is one of the most well-known "monsters" there has ever been. Sometimes spin-off media "fill in the gaps" of Doctor Who, such as "Why did the Sixth Doctor regenerate?". The "Tzan" version of the Master filled in the gap of Survival and Doctor Who (1996), through a comic strip. So my main point is, that the TV ones should be on the main image, and the spin-off ones should be mentioned throughout the article. Oh, and another thing. The template, The Masters template. I did think that the spin-off ones should be at least mentioned. Cortion 16:18, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

They are of equal importance in my opinion. Spin-off media isn't just to fill a gap. What gap exactly do the BFAs or PDAs fill. Just saying "please don't change this" is the only ludicrous thing here.----Skittles the hog--Talk 16:14, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who isn't just a TV programme, there were years when it wasn't even that. Right from practically the start the stories being told weren't just TV ones. I reject that the series' that have been produced outside of the TV series just fill in the gaps.

The composite infobox image helps to give a summary of the essential elements of the character. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:22, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there is no reason why the spin off Masters shouldn't be on the main image, this wikia treats all media with the same credibility and this should be reflected everywhere, not selectively. --Revan\Talk 16:35, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

I understand that this wiki considers the spin-off stuff to be equally canon to the actual show, but it seems ridiculous to say that the cartoon Master is just as important as the Roger Delgado or John Simm Masters.Icecreamdif 17:39, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

Why? Doctor Who can be enjoyed through any medium and have an impact through any of those, the comic story based Master dealt with issues on a similar level as the TV based character.

The image is trying to show what's covered on the article, I found it also illustrated the diverse range of stuff we cover on the wiki. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:48, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

Where's the "Final Frontier" Master. He is not shown up there. So it is incomplete. But mine shows all the ones on TV, they're the most significant. Cortion 07:58, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

No, they're not. You can't just state an unfounded opinion. What evidence do you have for spin-off media being less important?----Skittles the hog--Talk 10:07, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

But you didn't answer my question. Where is the "Final Frontier" Master, and why isn't it up there? Cortion 13:40, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

There is no image of that Master, as he originated in novels. --Revan\Talk 13:46, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

Strange how your questioning the absence of one, but proposing the removal of many. All forms of media are equal in my opinion, there is no reason why a comic strip Master shouldn't be given the same priority.----Skittles the hog--Talk 13:49, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

The view that TV incarnations are the only canon is Wikipedia's policy, so on there I would say yes, only TV Masters. But on here everything official is canon, so policy should reflect how we do our main images. --Revan\Talk 13:56, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a fan of wikipedia's view. It seems that just cannot be bothered incorporating them...so they don't.----Skittles the hog--Talk 14:01, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

I too am against the eleven-image thing, but for a solid reason of page design. It's only 250px, folks — not a centrefold spread. Think simple, not complete. The picture on any article doesn't need to be of every single thing ever purporting to be the subject of the article. It only needs to be enough to illustrate the topic in broad strokes. A simple split of Delgado and Simm — or at most Delgado, Simm, Roberts and Ainley — tell the reader, there's more than one of these guys. That's all that needs to happen. We don't need every companion at companion, every Cyberman at Cyberman, every Dalek at Dalek, and, frankly, we don't need every Doctor at the Doctor. It's even more the case here, where we simply don't have pictures of some of the incarnations. This argument that we're being "unfair" to Masters in other media is absolutely spurious. It's about the 250px width and how simply we can illustrate the concept at that width.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">14:11:28 Sat 18 Jun 2011

Well, if you laid it out in a similar style to the Doctors image (and removed the Deathworm, that isn't an incarnation) it would probably work well anyway.----Skittles the hog--Talk 14:18, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Czechout. Apart from the questions of which media is more important, that image was as useless as the old companion image was. It would make more sense for this to just be Delgado and Simm, and for the Doctor's page to be Hartnell and Smith. There could still be pictures of all the other Masters, both spin-off and television, in the body of the article.Icecreamdif 14:57, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Skittles. We have all the canon incarnations of the Doctor, Rassilon, Borusa and Romana, so why not the Master? The Rassilon image contains a comic image? Should that be removed? No. Therefore, the eleven (or ten if we remove the Deathworm) should stay. Mini-mitch\talk 16:57, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

Where as companion is a term and Cybermen have distinct variants, this is just a character with a different face. I think it is important to show each one to some degree.----Skittles the hog--Talk 17:14, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

Which we can — and indeed must — in the body of the article. Presence in the infobox pic is not equivalent to importance. Putting first and last incarnations here and at the Doctor doesn't diminish the importance of the intervening incarnations. It just says, "We've got 250px here; we'd rather go with a picture where you can easily see the faces without having to magnify it."

To those who don't know how many incarnations there are, having two-up — one in black-and-white/old-grainy-colour and the other in modern colour — immediately tells the story. It says, "This character isn't just the current series; he goes back a long way."

To those who do know the character well, putting up a Delgado/Simm split will obviously say, "Oh, that's the first Master and the most recent one." It won't scream "incomplete"; it'll say "first and last". If you go for a four-up or six-up design, that's where you get into arguments of "completeness". By limiting to two, it's obviously incomplete, so there must be some other organising principle at work.

I see people arguing against this because they say we do eleven-up at the Doctor. In my view, that page is wrong, just like this one. They both should be simple two-up designs. Simple, clear imagery is always better than overly complete ones. There are nice, big articles at both pages just crying out to be well-illustrated. It doesn't need to be jammed up in the infobox.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">00:33:53 Mon 20 Jun 2011

I disagree with the Rassilon image, and I'll try and change it sooner or later. But in the meantime I have got a very good reason why we don't need the spin-off Masters:

The Looms, a way of explaining the Time Lord reproductive system in a few Virgin spin-off books, such as Lungbarrow and Cat's Cradle: Time's Crucible. But it has never been mentioned on screen, and in a flashback they showed the Master as an eight-year-old, and in the latest episode they said the the Doctor had a cot.

So there! Spin-off media isn't always canonical! Cortion 06:47, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. Read the canon policy. If two accounts are in dispute, both are listed. As for CzechOut's point, I think you can clearly show 10/11 faces. The image at "the Doctor" is easily visible. However, if your saying that two would be more aesthetically pleasing, then that's a good point.----Skittles the hog--Talk 09:42, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

All of the main media, i.e. comics, television, audio and novels are treated equal. There is not one that trumps the other, not one of them is better than another one. They are the same, the only difference is that television stories are seen by a wider audience. There are some users who may not watch the television series, and only read comics, or listen to audio, and therefore everything is treated equally. It is part of the canon policy. I don't see why you cannot understand that. Every thing is equal. I fail to see why television must take priority when all media is treated the same. And also, leave the Rassilon image alone. Forget about it, until we reach an agreement about what to do with this image. Mini-mitch\talk 11:06, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

I could settle with the first Master and latest Master being on the infobox picture as CzechOut suggested. Cortion, if you took out all the spin off material on this wikia because it wasn't as important as television then we wouldn't even need the wikia, we would just have Wikipedia. The notion of some aspects of spin off media contradicting TV is understandable, Doctor Who has been around for almost 50 years, so at some point something is bound to contradict something else, even TV episodes have contradicted each other before (The Doctor's age as being 953 in Time of the Rani and 903 in Voyage of the Damned). --Revan\Talk 11:27, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

Alright listen. Why can't we have as a caption for my image: For spin-off incarnations, [whatever you want to put here]. Will that suit any of you? Cortion 15:13, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

No, because that is relagating them to another position. They need to be equal. --Revan\Talk 15:31, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

Wait..what? What's "your image". If it looks like it will treat other media as lesser, then no. And you still not answering the question of why you think television is more important that other media. It is not. As per the canon policy. Mini-mitch\talk 15:32, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

I am in support of the First and Last Masters being shown in the infobox, this does not relegate spin off Masters. --Revan\Talk 15:34, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

I think the image should have nine faces on it, which are the faces of the nine Masters shown in the "incarnations of the Master" template. If it's a three by three colum, it will look fine. Mini-mitch\talk 15:39, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

Checking through Cortion's contributions I'd imagine it is this image; File:Six-masters.jpg. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:42, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

Of course the TV shows are more important than the spin-off stuff. The TV show came first, and all the spin-offs are just based on the TV shows. The looms for example, are clearly non-canon. What do you think that future stories (both television and spin-off) are more likely to follow. The spin-off canon where the Timelords are loomed, or the actual television canon, where the Doctor had a crib when he was a baby, and the Master was an eight year old child? THe thing about the Doctor's age is a much more minor inconsistency. The Doctor probably doesn't even know his age with all the time travelling that he's done. The loom thing is a major inconsticency, that is obviously no longer considered canon by anyone involved in the show. On an slighly related note, the Rassilon image looks awful. If you must keep all the spin-off images in the infobox, at least lay it out the way that Borusa's is layed out, instead of having them all nect to eachother.Gowron8472 22:10, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

Please check your "facts". The TV series has many, many inconsistencies, some are rather major. Please see: Inconsistencies and Retcons before making incorrect statements. All media is the same, regardless of what came first.----Skittles the hog--Talk 09:13, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not denying that any show that has been airing for as long as Doctor Who has is bound to have some inconstinies, but nothing on that list is a major plot thing. Pretty much all of that is one minor reference in one episode conflicting with a major plot point in another episode. From what I understand about the loom story, that is an example of a major plot point in one spin-off story conflicting with a major plot point in a later TV story. The difference is that you can ignore the 2nd doctor's comment about timelords living forever, or the Seventh Doctor's comment about his age, and the story will reamin completely unchanged. If you ignore the looms, onthe other hand, then you have a completely different story. I'm not saying that we shouldn't document the spin-off stuff on this site, I jus don't think it should be treated equally to the television shows.Gowron8472 19:18, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Why should TV be any more canon than spin-off media? There is no reason. All media should be treated fairly and that is our policy here at TARDIS wiki.----Skittles the hog--Talk 13:08, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

So you think because something came first it immediately better, because it's not. The canon polciy of this wiki states all media is treated equally, therefore we should have the image of all ten masters (minus the Deathworm, and maybe the child). I don't see why no one, apart from Skittles, seems to understands this. Mini-mitch\talk 13:13, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the seem to offer up these grand opinions, but they don't justify them.----Skittles the hog--Talk 13:20, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

I am in full support of both Skittles and Mini-mitch's points here, I just suggested the "first" and "latest" Masters to be put in the image as a comprimise. I would much rather see all pictures in there though, but I am still open to a comprimise that doesn't go against our canon policy. --Revan\Talk 11:55, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

How about this then: We just show all the Doctors shown on TV, we DO NOT show the so-called "future incarnations" as show in spin-off material, such as The Doctor (Party Animals). We should do the same with the Master, just show the TV ones, the main ones. Let's just show the main ones, shown on TV. Cortion 06:54, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

Do you not understand our canon poilcy? All story formats are the same. Television, comics, novels and audio are treated as equal. In the case of the Doctor, we would not show future incarnations as most of them are non canon, meaning something else have over written it. In the case of the Doctor, it's the BBC. The comics have came up with a so called Eleventh Doctor, but if the BBC have made an offical Eleventh Doctor, then the comic one is non-canon. As for the Master these are past incarnations, we only seen the Master regenerate once. Which was Yana into Saxon. However, there are gaps in his life, such as Bruce into Yana, so we then go to the comics/novels/audio to see what incarnation(s) came between them and therefore use them.

Going back to the Doctor, is the BBC offical says "We going to show a program that shows all the incarnations of the Master" then we would use pictures from that, and if they don't use any comic strip Master, we can assume they are future incarnation or non canon incarnations.

In the case of the picture. We show the Master comic strip images because they "fill in the blanks" between incarnation and because we see comic strips and canon. We don't use it for the Doctor because we don't need to fill in the blanks. The BBC have said what number each incarnation of the Doctor is, and there is no need to fill in the blanks.

We should not be looking to the future, but to the present and the past. The future can change, that is why we do not include any of the "future" incarnation (that are mostly featured in comics strips, which, as someone on the side of the comic strips, finds ironic). We only include comic strips for the Master as we judge them canon and help to fill in the blanks which occur between incarnations, and that is why we should include all the images of the Matser. Mini-mitch\talk 10:35, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

I see that User:Cortion thinks repeating his unfounded point in cap locks is a valid argument. Please find a reason for this statement.----Skittles the hog--Talk 14:29, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

Skittles, caps doesn't just mean shouting (not a valid argument, agreed), but also an attention-getter for emphasis. Apparantly you've been ignoring his argument, and he's trying to get your attention. And then of course you reject his argument becuase "yelling" isn't valid. Sigh...he just can't win with you, can he?

Personally, I say: just use the TV images. I know that "all sources are created equal," unless there are contradictions between them, but the TV pictures are going to be the most recognizable ones. If we are going for completeness, then of course show all of the various incarnations, bodies, and forms the Master used. But if we are going for simply and introduction to the character, then the TV images are the most likely ones to be recognized. --Bold Clone 15:01, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

The point of the image in the infobox is to illustrate the subject the page is about. The page is about the Master in general, not just the television Masters. The comic and the television images help to illustrate the page, which it what is should do. Mini-mitch\talk 15:16, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

To address Bold Clone's point, yes caps are for emphasis but if you scan this article you'll find that his point has been answered several times. The canon policy has been cited on a number of occasions. We trying to illustrate the subject (how's that for emphasis), not make it immediately recognisable.

Imagine if the pics of Simm and Jacobi were removed. All the new series-only editors would kick up a storm. Of course there aren't any comic/novel-only editors, but I still think the pics should stand if we're going to show them all.---Skittles the hog--Talk 15:34, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

If we are aiming for comeplteness, and if all sources are considered equal, then of corse we should have all the various forms. --Bold Clone 16:20, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that "completeness or not" is the only question left. I would be happy with all or just first and last as both are good ideas.----Skittles the hog--Talk 16:33, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

I would clarify that the infobox is there as a quick summary of the page, this is why some short individual articles don't have an infobox because there isn't enough to summarise.

So, as I see it there are three options, "completeness" with all the images, "first and last" (which I imagine would be Delgado and Simm) or choose a single image that immediately summarises the Master as we do with species' infoboxes. --Tangerineduel / talk 06:09, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

File:Delgado and friend.jpg

Image suggestion.----Skittles the hog--Talk 12:28, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

I like the first and last idea. The image to the right is just a suggestion. I also created a vertically longer image if anyone thinks it's too short.----Skittles the hog--Talk 12:28, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

I like this kind of image, although the Delgado Master pic is a tad blurry, perhaps we should find a more clearer one? --Revan\Talk 12:34, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I though someone might pick up on that. It's from Terror, so it's bound to be a bit naff. I'll try and find a better one. Perhaps on The Sea Devils... ----Skittles the hog--Talk 12:37, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

File:Delgado and friend 2.jpg

Image suggestion 2.----Skittles the hog--Talk 12:45, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

Ta da. No black line on this one.----Skittles the hog--Talk 12:45, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just show the main Masters? Cortion 12:54, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

So you suggesting we show all the masters, as what the original images was? I agree with that. Mini-mitch\talk 12:55, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

I would also prefer an image featuring all the Masters. The suggestions I provided were only intended as a compromise.----Skittles the hog--Talk 14:03, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

Same as Skittles with me too. --Revan\Talk 14:18, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

Umm...have we just had a long discussion and ended up right back at the start? Doesn't really matter, I guess now we have a discussion to refer to the next time this happens. --Tangerineduel / talk

The majority of people want the old 11 master image. I will re add it, and when/if Cortion returns after his block, if he still disagrees, we can continue the discussion. Mini-mitch\talk 17:29, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be annoying and a nuisance, but I think we should just show the TV Masters. They are the main Masters. Some people might not know anything about the spin-off Masters, but they know about the TV Masters. These are the main incarnations. So in the mean time I'm taking the image down. If you disagree with this, don't kick up a fuss, just revert my edit. Thanks. BroadcastCorp. 08:55, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

BroadcastCorp. I understand how you can think this.

But, if you think like that...well this wiki is sort of pointless as no one knows everything and you come to a wiki (or indeed Wikipedia) to find out information. To discover more about what you do and find out about what you don't.

As has been said numerous times above we don't just cover the TV stories. We're different to Wikipedia (which notable does have just the TV Masters). --Tangerineduel / talk 16:06, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. But I'll change the image to a clearer version (don't panic, it's the one you (we) want!). BroadcastCorp. 16:29, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Is it?

We had agreed we wanted all the Masters, but critically the Master from the pre-titles of the TVM isn't there. Nor is the young Master. Or the Deathworm.

Looking back through the page's history this image "Eleven Masters" was used and does at least show all the ones we've been discussing.

I'm removing the image as, is highlighted by the omission I don't think we're yet finished working out what images we want. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:26, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

File:Eight-masters.jpg

This is the image I propose.

The Deathworm is not an incarnation. We don't need the young Master, because that is the same incarnation as the Delgado one but younger. It's not known if the TVM pre-titles one is a different incarnation or the Ainley version. So the image I added still stands. BroadcastCorp. 17:42, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

We definately need the young Master as spin off media tells us that he is a different incarnation than Delgado and that is what we must go by. Spin off media also tells us that the pre-TVM Master cannot be Ainley as there are 2 incarnations that come between Ainley and the TVM Master. --Revan\Talk 17:45, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Which spin off media told you that the young Master is a different incarnation? BroadcastCorp. 17:48, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Your image doesn't stand. What evidence do you have that the Delgado Master is the child. There isn't any. The TVM pre-titles one is different to the Ainley Master as he "died" under completely different circumstances. However, I do agree that the Deathworm is not an incarnation.----Skittles the hog--Talk 17:48, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

The Dark Path depicts the Master regenerating several times and this is set before he meets the Third Doctor in Terror of the Autons so Delgado cannot be the first Master. Legacy of the Daleks also tells us that the Delgado Master is the twelfth incarnation and the corpse-like form is his last body which decayed because a Dalek superweapon was still detonating after Delgado regenerated. --Revan\Talk 17:51, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

I really think we should just show the adult Masters, don't you? BroadcastCorp. 17:56, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

No, because there's no point to that, we need to put all the Masters into the picture and not be selective. --Revan\Talk 18:28, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

The fact that even after it has been decided that the spin-off Masters should be included, people are still arguing about which Masters belong in the infobox is proof that it makes more sense to go with the simpler picture. If we use the one with just the Delgado and Simm Masters, than we avoid arguments about which incarnations are the same as which, and which ones are important to show.Icecreamdif 22:40, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

We just can't show a child Master in the main image! It's not necessary at all. We've mentioned that child throughout the article. Let's just show the adult Masters, to avoid confusion. He spends most of his time as an adult. Him as a child is just... his life hasn't even started yet! If you know what I mean... BroadcastCorp. 11:38, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

And also, the pre-titles Master isn't even mentioned in The Master's stories template, that's why I didn't add it. BroadcastCorp. 14:03, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

BroadcastCorp is illustrating exactly what I mean. The only ones that nobody would argue to not be included are the who were there originally. Even when we establish which ones are canon, there are still arguments about which ones ae significant. It can be argued whether the snake master counts as an incarnation or not, or whether the Tersure Master is the same as the UNIT years Master, or wheher the Master who appeared for about 2 seconds in the TV Movie and the child Master are significant or not. It is much simpler to just include the first and last Masters who appeared, so it would just be Delgado and Simm.Icecreamdif 16:32, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

We can show the child Master, that wasn't even an issue prior to the original discussion, he's an onscreen Master who is an individual separate from the others in the image. Likewise, if we're going for the simplest interpretation of all Masters the pre-titles TVM needs to be included.

I'm not sure what you mean with regard to the child/adult argument, we don't have enough information to make accurate assumptions of life/lifestyle of Time Lords and how much of their lives they are "children".

I agree the Deathworm probably shouldn't be included as it's more an intermediary sort of thing.

I support either all the Masters or as has been discussed, and noted again by Icecreamdif a simpler 2 Masters image. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:40, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, how about this. We show the TVM pre-titles Master, and not show the child Master? Agree? BroadcastCorp. 16:55, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

Not really, what reason do you have to not include the child?----Skittles the hog--Talk 16:57, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

The child is as much part of the Master's life as the pre-TVM Master, and all the others. So I'm not sure where the issue lies. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:05, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

File:Nine-masters.jpg

Here is my image suggestion with the TVM pre-titles Master.

The Master is an evil and psychopathic mastermind. Showing a child on the main page isn't really good. It's best to show him in his prime, not when he was an innocent child. I've added the TVM pre-titles Master, and here it is, (my image suggestion):. BroadcastCorp. 17:26, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

The page is for the Master and should include all incarnations of him, not to portray the "theme of the character". The image you just posted would look better with the young Master as the image would be two rows of 5 and would have no white spaces. --Revan\Talk 17:39, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

File:Ten-masters.jpg

What do you think? Like it? I certainly do!

Alright, you win. In fact, we win. We should show all the on-screen Masters, including the child. Here it is, the image you have all been waiting for... BroadcastCorp. 17:55, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

To me, the ten image is fantastic. It's exactly how I pictured it. Great job. I'm happy with this. Mini-mitch\talk 17:58, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

Should I add it then?! 82.34.57.38 17:59, July 10, 2011 (UTC)