Forum:The Master

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → The Master

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

Shouldn't we put The Master's incarnations on seperate pages instead of all on one page? The Master Chief-117 23:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Unlike the Doctor where it's all very clear cut who/which one he is, with the Master it's a little more vague. Therefore easier to understand in one line in the single article. --Tangerineduel 14:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I vote yes for the main reason that it facilitates going into more detail for individual incarnations, so, that, for example, a Harold Saxon page can go into more detail about the Master's specific plans on Earth at that time. we probably had more stories revolving around that particular character on television than any other character other than the Doctor himself.

also, a precedent exists for K9 Mark I, K9 Mark II, Romana I and Romana II, etc. --Stardizzy? 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain how it's vague? Please? Just, so I understand. The Master Chief-117 01:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a Master during the Third Doctor's era, which could have been basically any regeneration from 1-12. Then there was a Master in The Deadly Assassin, which was probably the 13th. Then he took over Tremas, which could be considered a continuation of his 13 regeneration or a whole new cycle. Then in the Doctor Who: The TV Movie he was killed by the Daleks, and turned into a snake-thingy, which could also be a continuation or a new cycle. Then he takes over a Human, which could also be a new cycle or a continuation. Then he's killed and brought back by the Time Lords for the Last Great Time War, which is definitely a new cycle. Then, at some point he goes to the far future, which in turn could be any regeneration from 1-12 (who knows how many times he was killed between being brought back and meeting the Doctor in Utopia?).

The Master's life isn't as well documented as the Doctors, so trying to split it up would be rather difficult. -<Azes13 03:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)>-

your summary ignores the continuity established in the books, which fill in some continuity holes. beneath The Dark Path establishes that the Master we first saw on television had reached his last regeneration. Legacy of the Daleks explains the whole rotting Master thing. during the Eighth Doctor time period the Master's gets snarled-up, contradictory and confusing but then so had the Doctor's at that time, with audios and comics, etc. all saying different things. again, multiple articles would help readers to assimilate this information in small chunks. --Stardizzy? 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Also in addition to those TV stories there is First Frontier where he gets the whole Kitling thing un-done by the Tzun and is killed once there. --Tangerineduel 04:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's alot of Master's. I think I see your point know. Unless your up to the challenge. Probably not huh? The Master Chief-117 22:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

most of the master's we have seen are the same. Pratt, Beevers, Ainley (and Tipple if you count him) arwe the same 13th incarnation. I think Roberts also played the same version, as he was able to transform into a snake after The Eight Doctors. i haven't seen Deadly assasin, but If I've understood correctly, the pratt version is a decayed version of Delgado, so he is also the same version. In which case we would have three articels - the classic series master, the yana master and the Saxon Master, in addition to the masters in the books/ audios. I don't think that is really needed, as the Yana and Saxon masters haven't really featured enough. We could split the current page to separate the new series masters from the old series master. Jack's the man - 10:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• The Master, (as played by Roger Delgado who decayed into the Pratt/Beevers Master) reborn as the Tremas Master, and therefore this entry should get renamed)
• The Tremas Master (played by Anthony Ainley)
• The First Frontier Master
• The Happy Endings Master (doesn't need own article, IMO)
• The rotted Master (played by Beevers in Seventh Doctor audio plays)
• The executed Master (doesn't need own article; the Gordon Tipple one)
• The snake Master (played by Eric Roberts)
• The Eighth Doctor Master (from the Doctor Who Magazine comics)
• The Eighth Doctor novels Master (who appeared briefly enough not to warrant an entry, I think)
• The version of the Master from the The Book of the War whose name escapes me
• The Yana Master (I don't think he features enough and I think the Professor Yana page will do)
• The Harold Saxon Master
• Out-of-continuity versions: "The Curse of the Fatal Death", The Scream of the Shalka, the Doctor Who Unbound one --Stardizzy? 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea I don't know why I didn't think of it. Oh, yeah I'm not as smart as people think and people don't think I'm too smart. The Master Chief-117 23:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

you don't have to demean yourself, just try the best that you can. --Stardizzy? 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a nice thing to say. I think I'm gonna cry. The Master Chief-117 23:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just have "The First Known Master" (Roger Delgado - Beevers) , "The Second Known Master" (Ainley) etc. --Sichamousacoricothingmabob 18:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea!! The Master Chief-117 17:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I thinkj, since we don't really know much about some of the masters, we should just keep it as one page, and divide it up into different sections. If this proves too large, then we can see how to divide it up.

Also, we need to see which versions there are - I personally think that Ainley is the same as Beevers, as in TVM the Doctor states that his "final incarnation had been exterminated by the Daleks" (i.e. 13th). Then you have to argue whether the Roberts Master is the same version or not, and so on - it's really not worth the trouble. Jack's the man - 12:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find some info on the Master's incarnations. I do like Sichamousacoricothingmabob's idea. The Master Chief-117 22:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Revived discussion

Well we've clearly gone from this discussion to a situation where we were talking about making separate articles to where they're now just way too many. I mean, when we're redlinking The Master (Aged 8) in the nav box at right, that's a step way too far.

[Note: the nav box has been deleted since this conversation took place.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  14:35: Mon 10 Dec 2012]

Personally, I think the simplest, most in-universe way to go would be to fold all these individual articles back into The Master and just deal with a really long article. It's not like it'll be hard to navigate or link to the information. Every page comes with its own, linkable, clickable table of contents.

But if you absolutely must have separate articles, the only ones that deserve their own articles (in terms of amount of information that actually justifies a separate article) are The Master (Delgado), The Master (Ainley) and The Master (Simm), with the additional possibility that the behind-the-scenes info just might give you enough info to justify The Master (Roberts). At the end of the day there are only four major incarnations of this character.

As for protestations that using the actor's name isn't "in-universe" enough — see, for instance, Talk:The Master (UNIT years) —I say it's a spurious argument. Sure it's out of universe, but there's no in-universe way to do it. We don't know his incarnation number. We don't know that he spent even the majority of his life on Earth harassing UNIT. For that matter, from a broad, multi-media view, it's even wrong to call the Third Doctor "the UNIT-based Doctor". There are tons of stories where he wasn't that at all. There is simply no in-universe way to do it that will be commonly understood or agreed. No one can deny that he is the "Delgado Master", though. I think these various in-universe ways of describing the Master are remarkably silly, and highly conjectural. I've been around fandom a long time, and have never seen him described as "The UNIT years Master". Nor have I ever heard Ainley described as "The Tremas Master". And I really haven't heard Roberts' version called "The Bruce Master". That makes me just laugh, it's so ridiculous.

When in-universe descriptions create more confusion than clarity, they need to go. And if character pages are really meant to be so absolutely in-universe, then why do they all give the name of the actor who played the role? CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 04:04, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

I've just been in the process of deleting 'The Master (Aged 8)' when I got to this forum posting.

I am more or less still in favour of one long article, though if we wanted there could (rather than separate pages) be sub-pages branching off from the main Master encounter so we could have The Master/Tzun encounter (for the Master who dealt with the Tzun in PROSE: First Frontier) or The Master/Tremas or The Master/Yana etc, just throwing that idea out there. I know it's sort of the same as what we've got now, but it could allow for more precise articles...or something, as I said just an idea. --Tangerineduel 15:11, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we'd want to over complicate things with sub-pages. It just seems like you'd be switching back and forth from the pages if you were looking for something. I think we just want to keep it simple and move it all to one page. -<Azes13 15:45, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's three editors in favor of one page. Anyone opposed? CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 14:27, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'm throwing this back to the main Panopticon discussion area because it seems to have been agreed back in 2010, but we haven't actually done anything to enact the apparently agreed policy. Any editors who have joined us since 2010 opposed to the agreement to compact all articles about the Master into one article?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 20:19:15 Sun 05 Jun 2011