Talk:The Monk/Archive 1

His name
I don't recall him being referred to by name in his two television appearances. If this name was applied to the character in spin-off media, this needs to be indicated somewhere. 23skidoo 20:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Article title/ Name change
The Master is not at Koschei, the Rani is not at Ushas, and the War Chief is not at Magnus. Why is this at Mortimus and not the Monk?--The Traveller 12:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It comes from what he was last known as/most recently known as. Ushas and Koschei is what they used to be called, but have since referred to themselves as Rani and Master. The name 'the Monk' was a name applied to him by the First Doctor, but in No Future he is referring to himself as Mortimus. --Tangerineduel 12:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this page should be named "The Monk" same as the others eg "The Doctor". Is No Future canon? 86.149.235.138 17:49, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

So in your way of speaking the Monk should now be called as Abbot Thelonious. (Ceryu 18:14, October 10, 2010 (UTC))

The Monk should be known by is most recent name so it should be Monk right they only called him Mortimus in the academy?

I agree with you, they only called The Monk by Mortimus in the academy, just like the War Chief or the Rani. Is should be changed to The Monk. (Ceryu 18:11, October 10, 2010 (UTC))

I agree that his name should be changed to The Monk, because like the Master the Monk is his most used alias and Abbot Thelonious is just a cover name much like what thew Master uses. Mortimus is the Monk's true name but like the Master and the Rani the article titles should use the individuals most consistent and universally known name. Revanvolatrelundar 18:18, October 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * How is the Monk the most universally known name? The Monk is the most known alias because that's what he's called in the TV stories he's appeared in.
 * Mortimus names himself/is named in the dialogue in No Future, not just at the academy.
 * Does Mortimus refer to himself as "the Monk"? The Master and the Doctor both refer to themselves using their titles/alias but does the Monk? --Tangerineduel 15:25, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mortimus is still not the Monk's most recently used name though, Abbot Thelonious is which muddies the waters about what to call the article in my opinion. Revanvolatrelundar 15:36, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't Abbot Thelonious an alias he goes under while Mortimus he states is his name, his real name? --Tangerineduel 16:15, October 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * And what of the majority of us that don't accept books and audio books as canon? If he was only named Mortimus in the books and on screen was named the Monk, then like the Rani and the Master, he should be known as the Monk. 86.185.155.73 03:52, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution of picture.
This picture:



...is of the actor Jim Carter. He did not play Abbot Thelonious, he played Brother Bernard. Abbot Thelonious was played by Graeme Garden.

94.192.226.173 22:21, October 18, 2010 (UTC)Gareth Roberts
 * The image has been removed from this article, thanks for the note. Rob T Firefly 02:35, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Misinterpretations?
First, at no point in "The Time Meddler" or "The Daleks Master Plan" was the character ever referred to by any name. Since he disguised himself as a monk, people called him "The Monk". But prior to "The Time Meddler" and after "The Daleks Master Plan" he wouldn't have dressed that way. He didn't behave particularly like a monk either!

Next up, the idea that he is "childish" or "not clever". Actually he comes across as very cunning(even after The Doctor works out something is suspicious, he still traps The Doctor). Even though he plans to kill the entire Viking fleet(hardly thw actions of a childlike buffoon) he STILL manages to convince the Vikings that he is on their side. His "stupidity" can(and actually SHOULD BE) likened to the Second Doctor acting like a "simpleton" in say "The Dominators" or the Seventh Doctor's various times he acted less intelligent than he really is.

Third, when FASA came out, it didn't contradict anything. It ADDED continuity, but didn't contradict. Unlike the 90's novels. This exchange from DMP9:Golden Death SHOULD have been a wonderful case of good fortune as regards foreshadowing, but has been destroyed by all that Gallifrey 90210 nonsense:

("Monk" and Mavic Chen/Daleks discuss The Docor):

Mavic Chen: He(The Doctor) is a friend od yours?

Monk:Friend?No, no. An enemy! An enemy to end all enemies! I came here to inflict a terrible vengeance on him! I mean, we're all on the same side here, aren't we?

Mavic Chen:But he knows you?

Monk:Well...in a manner of speaking, yes... and again, in another manner of speaking, no.

Mavic Chen:Could you gain his confidence?

Monk:Certainly. Certainly. If you wanted me to. No question about it. No doubt at all.

Remember that "The Monk" immediately recognises The Doctor in "The Time Meddler" but not vice versa. Interestingly The First Doctor doesn't recognise The Ainley Master in "The Five Doctors" either! And if 'The Monk' was a new villain, how could he expect to gain the trust of someone who wasn't a childhood friend? In fact during "The Time Meddler" and "The Daleks Master Plan" The Doctor and 'The Monk' spend a lot of time actually quite playfully ruining each other's time machines. Sound familar? 41.132.117.234talk to me 18:58, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

History
So, let's get this right...Mortimus was a friend of The Doctor's when they were young. They went to school together where they were both part of the same group called The Deca. He was a childish, meddler who had interest in monks. The Doctor and Mortimus both left Gallifrey at around the same time, both stealing TARDISes. Some time later, The Doctor met Mortimus for the first time ever(as noted in the Discontinuity Guide), and Mortimus told the Doctor that he had left Gallifrey fifty years after the Doctor(despite nothing in the serial the Time Meddler stating as such). They completely failed to recognise each other, apart from the fact that the Monk called the Doctor "Doctor". Oh, and the Target novelisation making it perfectly clear that "the two old men instantly recognised each other". The Monk planned to wipe out an entire Viking fleet with nuclear warheads, because he is essentially a comical figure. The Doctor stranded him in 1066 by shrinking the interior of his TARDIS to the size of a small doll's house. Because the Monk is a foolish, childish figure who is nowhere as clever as he thinks he is, he was able to quickly repair his TARDIS, and track down the Doctor's TARDIS to a rock planet. After encountering Mavic Chen and the Daleks(with the Monk telling Chen that he knew the Doctor well), the Doctor stranded the Monk on an ice planet, having both taken the Monk's directional control circuit AND disabled the Monk's chameleon circuit. Because he is a childlike comical figure who always dresses like a monk(after all he is The Monk) he repaired the directional control, and met up with the Fifth Doctor at the North Pole, and this was the first time they had met since Ancient Egypt in the Daleks Master Plan. His TARDIS was however stuck in the form of a police box, despite the fact he had successfully repaired the chameleon cicuit in Daleks Master Plan(his TARDIS resembled a block of ice on the ice planet). He didn't dress like a monk, was never referred to as "Monk"(upper case) or "a monk"(lower case). He still looked like he did in Daleks Master Plan, despite the Doctor being more than 400 years older, and four regenerations on. The Fifth Doctor(travelling without any of Adric, Nyssa, Tegan, Kamelion, Peri or Turlough, but with an American from the World War II in the 60's called 'Gus') defeated "The Time Meddler" as he was known, killing The Time Meddler. He returned with his TARDIS trapped in the form of a portable public lavatory(because he was unable to repair it back in Ancient Egypt), badly burned from the North Pole, and still dressed as a monk, and called The Monk, and still the comical figure he always was. This encounter with the Seventh Doctor was the second time since Daleks Master Plan that the Doctor had met the Time Meddler, er, The Monk. Later, Mortimus(ie. neither The Monk nor The Time Meddler) travelled to the mid-70's where manned flights to Mars were commonplace since the 60's, but simple video technology doesn't exist. He meets the Seventh Doctor. This is the first time Mortimus has met the Doctor since The Daleks Master Plan. The Seventh Doctor thwarts his plan. Later, because he is such a comic, bumbling figure, the Eternal Death selects him to be her Champion. Despite The Master being Death's Champion. Because The Monk is a common childlike figure who is not clever at all, the CIA used him as an oprative, where he was responsible for the Legion's imprisonment. Later he wound up in a monastery in Ireland in the 11th Century with his TARDIS(one of only two that have ever been stolen), this bumbling childlike figure who is not half as clever as he thinks he is, was able to persuade two of the Doctor's companions to come to his side(oh, he thought he ahd persuaded Ace to do the same earlier, but the joke was on him all along). The Meddling Monk, as he has always been known, did however save Susan's life. What have I left out?
 * Paragraph breaks. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 10:16, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha. No seriously, is this what we are supposed to believe?
 * I suppose so. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 10:42, September 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep. Your summary is fairly succinct. Though this wiki isn't asking you to believe in anything, we're just presenting the information based on the sources cited on the page.
 * To see how we cover belief on this wiki though, you can check out our; Philosophy Myths and legends, Occult and Religion categories which hold several articles on belief and structures built around them. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:45, September 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it was about beliefs as in religion/mythology. It struck me as more about the fact that The Monk(as an example) met The Doctor for the first time since Daleks Master Plan in 4-Dimensional Vistas. But then he later met The Doctor for the first time since Daleks Master Plan in No Future. Or the fact that the two were the same age, attended the Academy together were they were both part of the same gang, and left Gallifrey at the same time. Yet they later met for the first time ever in 1066, where The Monk supposedly he left Gallifrey fifty years after The Doctor. It is a hopeless mes of self-contradictions, impossibilities and logical flaws. Someone's beliefs are irrelevant. Someone trying to present that as a coherent biography would have no chance.

Contradictory paths? not anymore
In his recent appearance in Doom Colition 4, the Monk tells the Doctor that he's decided to not care about any grudges held by his past incarnations. This very neatly explains how the Monk that appears in Big Finish stories can be the same Monk that appeared in the New Adventures. I propose the biography section be reorganized to have The Time Meddler, then comics, then Daleks masterplan, then Death's Champion, then Hound, then Gardener, then post-Time War. CoT    ?  23:11, March 14, 2017 (UTC)
 * Ugh sounds like a lot of work. Are you up for creating a sandbox page that we can then place here or on the forum for suggestions? Shambala108 ☎  01:37, March 15, 2017 (UTC)
 * I make it sound worse than it actually is. It's really just a matter of removing the contradictory account system the article currently has and adding something like

With his regeneration, the Monk adopted a policy of separation between his incarnations. He dropped all grudges held by his past self and asked those that encountered him to consider the action should of his other selves as the actions of different people. (AUDIO: The Side of the Angels)
 * Also, because two incarnations of the Monk have met the Eighth Doctor, the Graeme Gardner section needs a new header. CoT     ?  17:29, March 17, 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, my experience with the Monk is limited to two serials and two novels, so I'll leave this up to you. Any heading changes you would need to make aren't a problem. Shambala108 ☎  00:27, March 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * They're a minor problem that can be easily fixed. Template:Garden. Last summer, this page got the Master treatment, so anyone that changes headers should be aware that they must also change the templates. CoT     ?  00:33, March 18, 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh, I did not know that. Shambala108 ☎  00:43, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

Chronology
Are we sure that the Rufus Hound Monk happens before the whole Lucy/Tamsin thing? Cause it makes sense to me that as its most recent it happened after (at least that's usually how Eighth Doctor stuff goes)

In the Third Doctor Adventures Volume 4, the Monk refers to one of the companions the Doctor has had as a “brassy bird from Blackpool” which suggests that the Hound Monk comes after the Garden Monk, unless the Hound Monk encounters Lucie at some point before the events of Series 4 of the Eighth Doctor Adventures or something, which I doubt. SarahJaneFan ☎

Main voice actor
While I don't think Hound or Garden are really significantly more "main" than the other, the reason for the change to Hound as main actor given by User:OncomingStorm12th isn't really true. Hound hasn't been in more stories as the Monk – they have appeared in 5 each, including 5 full-cast stories in the case of Garden and 3 full cast stories and 2 short trips in the case of Hound. And Hound hasn't played him longer – it's only been 3 years since his first appearance as the Monk while Garden has so far played him between 2010 and 2015. JagoAndLitefoot ☎  11:59, July 18, 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I kind of agree they are both kind of "main". I switched them because I overlooked the fact that Garden also played the Monk in The Secret History. And by "longer" I was thinking of "lenght of stories" more than "time between first and final story in which they voiced the character". Anyways, I think it's okay to leave Garden there as "main" for now. OncomingStorm12th ☎  15:25, July 18, 2018 (UTC)

Mortimus vs. Lucie Miller
Question for experts: why is the Monk first Mortimus and then travels with Lucie Miller? The reason I'm asking is that in The Book of Kells he tells Tamsin Drew he's never been to Salzburg, while travelling with Lucie Miller, whereas Mortimus takes Antonio Salieri to Salzburg to kill Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in The Tramp's Story. Amorkuz ☎

Are the Monk and Mortimus the same character?
From the Target novelisation "The Time Meddler":

'Outside on the staircase the Monk appeared, holding a loft a burning torch. He regarded his captive's pathetic attempts at escape with evil amusement. Their eyes met and in that instant a flash of recognition passed between the two old men. The Monk threw back his head and laughed triumphantly. He had the Doctor in his power; nothing in the world could interfere with his plans now.'

And from the Target novelisation "The Mutation of Time(aka The Dalek's Mast Plan pt. 2":

'With a sinking feeling, he bent down to examine the underside of the mushroom-shaped console. There, dangling teasingly, were several wires...howling, the Monk examined them, and then straightened up.'The Doctor's done it again', he screamed. 'He's stolen my directional unit! I'll have to wander around in space and time as lost as he is!' Furiously, he kicked the console, and then winced with pain. Shaking his fist at the roof, he vowed:'I'll get you for this, Doctor! Somehow, someday - I'll get you for this!'

So,

a)The Monk and the Doctor clearly recognise each other instantly in 1066. b)The Monk is never stranded anywhere. Quite the opposite, he is destined to wander time and space with no control of his TARDIS. (If his TARDIS was 'stranded', he would never have been able to get TO the ice planet in the first place, obviously.)

'Mortimus' is a character who had never met the Doctor before Mediaevel England, and was stranded on an ice planet for a considerable period of time.

Only possible conclusion: Peter Butterworth's Monk from the Time Meddler and the Daleks' Master Plan & Paul Cornell's Mortimus from No Future are two entirely separate, unconnected characters.

If we bring Big Finish in, things get even stronger for this case..

In the Book of Kells, the Eighth Doctor mentions not having seen the Monk since the events of The Daleks' Master Plan.

Yet, the Sixth Doctor mentions a 'Mortimus' to the Rani in The Rani Elite.

Whoever, 'Mortimus' is then, he is not the same Time Lord as the character Peter Butterwroth played in The Time Meddler. Mortimus makes his first ever appearance in No Future. Clearly, he has met the Doctor "two or three times" before. And, prior to No Future, the Doctor must have stranded him on an ice planet. But this is clearly a story we do not know anything about yet.


 * Note that this anon is a user I have had encounters with before, and I have reason to suspect this post is merely a lure to drag us into yet another debate about whether the Monk, the War Chief, and the Master are the same person. If so I must point out that not acknowledging the connection from an in-universe perspective does not constitute a denial of that potential interpretation. I mean, we have a page on "Professor Stream" written as if he’s a new person, and I don’t think ANYONE seriously denies his status as the Master, we’re simply not allowed to say so out loud. But, if you are asking in good faith, and perhaps this is case of mistaken identity, as I did say it was a mere suspicion at this juncture, then I must most humbly apologise for casting doubt over your aspirations, but must respectful query as to how you account for all the stories in which the Monk/Mortimus appear in which he is referred to by both names and their identity is made abundantly clear with no room for reasonable doubt? 86.183.123.28talk to me 08:40, May 13, 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring your attack...can you name one story where Mortimus and the Monk are explicitly referred to as being one and the same?

>ignoring your attack

You know, you could have just denied it. By accusing me of ‘attacking’ you, you all but admit to wing the user I refer to, else, how have I attacked you? And, since you have admitted my suspicions, I see no more reason to continue with this waltz. Have a nice day! 86.183.123.28talk to me 09:05, May 13, 2020 (UTC)

Actually, you know what, we’re in quarantine, I have nothing better to do, so, just for a laugh, he’s referred to by both names (by himself, no less, who should hopefully know!) in The Persistence of Memory. You can see this, in, on the Google Books preview snippet. There, now, would you like to talk about The War Chief and/or the Master? After all, it’s no grand secret that’s what you’re REALLY doing here! 86.183.123.28talk to me 09:14, May 13, 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have an obsession with another poster. But, your link doesn't confirm or deny anything. It's just a snippet of...something.

Oh, dear, illiterate are we? You haven’t improved since I knew you from Doctor Who Answers Wiki. Still not signing your posts either, you could at least pretend to a different user. But, oh, pray enlighten me, what you think "It’s me! Mortimus! Or as you used to call me, The Meddling Monk!" means? I’ll wait. I have a feeling I’ll be waiting a very long time. 86.183.123.28talk to me 17:05, May 13, 2020 (UTC)


 * While I am not an admin, I'm just gonna pop in here and note Tardis: No personal attacks. You're completely right about this issue, and I'd hate to see you get blocked and the user here be satisfied because of it.Najawin ☎  18:20, May 13, 2020 (UTC)


 * All issues of personal attacks aside, while this was an interesting edge-case of "when can we definitively identify two characters" (I am reminded of the ongoing confusion at Talk:Trask (The Highlanders)), I'd personally say there's little more to say once we've seen a valid story having Mortimus mention how the Doctor knew him as the Meddling Monk. Mortimus was (despite continuity slip-ups) always intended to be the Monk, and we've got valid sources confirming that yep, he was the Monk all the time. What more do we want? This is getting into "if a story has the Doctor mention a companion named Clara without giving a last name, we should created Clara (Doctor Who and the Example) because we don't know it's Clara Oswald" territory. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  18:36, May 13, 2020 (UTC)

Article made from whole cloth
A rundown:


 * In the Beginning, Doctor Who was a human scientist from the future, who invented a timeship. His human granddaughter Susan gave it the name "Tardis". Doctor Who and Susan travelled through time and space in their Tardis. Then, Susan met and stayed with a human man, David. Doctor Who carried on travelling in his Tardis, with new companions.


 * While travelling with his human companions Steven and Vicki, Doctor Who encountered another human time traveller from the future, with a timeship of his own. This human time traveller was attempting to alter the course of Earth history, both to "improve" it, and for his own personal gain. Why Earth history? Because he was a human being, of course. The man was disguised as a monk, as he was using an abandoned eleventh-century monastery as his base of operations. He was NEVER called "the Monk", the way the Doctor is called "the Doctor". The Doctor thwarted the plans the man had in 1066.


 * Not long after, they encountered each other again, ending with the Doctor removing the man's directional control. He now longer had any control whatsoever over where or when his timeship would go.


 * MAJOR RETCON: In Season 6 of Doctor Who, it was revealed that the Doctor was a Time Lord who has stolen his TARDIS. He was tried by the Council of Time Lords, and exiled to Earth in the late 20th century.


 * We then found out about how Omega and Rassilon had in fact been the ones who invented the TARDIS, the Doctor's home planet was called 'Gallifrey', and he definitely was NOT a human being(eg. he has two hearts).


 * We also met another renegade Time Lord, who had ALSO stolen a TARDIS..the Master.


 * Multiple Target novelisations, as well as real-world interviews with the people who actually made the television episodes, make it unambiguously clear that Edward Brayshaw's "War Chief" and Roger Delgado's "Master" are the exact same character.


 * Multiple Target novelisations, as well as real-world interviews with the people who actually made the television episodes, make it unambiguously clear that The Doctor and the Master were the only two renegade Time Lords, and the only two Time Lords to ever steal a TARDIS, up to that time. (No, don't be stupid. of course the Rani doesn't count, as she would only be introduced more than a decade later.)


 * But....there was another renegade with a TARDIS in The Time Meddler and The Daleks' master Plan, wasn't there?


 * Thus, we have a problem. It is unambiguously stated that the Doctor and the Master/War Chief are the ONLY TWO renegade Time Lords to that point.So, where does Butterworth fit in?


 * The real explanation is that Peter Butterworth never actually played a Time lord from the planet Gallifrey. His character was a human time traveller from the future. But, after the retcon that the Doctor is a Time Lord.


 * There was a time then when people went for the simplest explanation, and simply stated that Peter Butterworth's character is the SAME character as the Master. This appears in the FASA Books, in the 1980 board game, in issues of Doctor Who Magazine. And in fact many Anthony Ainley Master stories, both on television, and in print don't make sense at all, unless the Ainley Master is the same character that Peter Butterworth played on screen in the 1960's.


 * However, at the same time, Doctor Who Magazine did a comic story called 4-Dimensional Vistas, where a "Failed Time Lord" called the Time Meddler appears. Note, he is not the Master, but he is also NEVER referred to as the "Monk". Why would he be?


 * But then DWM did another comic story called Follow That TArdis! where a character actually called "the Meddling Monk" appears.


 * And then, the Virgin New Adventures gave us No Future, where a character called "Mortimus" appears. This Mortimus was apparently stranded on an ice planet for a long time, something that never happened to any other version of thsi character. He also never knew the Doctor from Gallifrey, and actualyl ahs pretty much nothing in common with the character Peter Butterworth played on television, only author Paul Cornell's intention, that ;Mortimus' be the same character.


 * Then, in Divided Loyalties, Gary Russell did a controversial sequence where Mortimus and the Doctor are good friends at the academy on Gallifrey. But the Mortimus from No Future never knew the Doctor on Gallifrey.


 * Big Finish weighed in with Graeme Garden playing a character who is actually called "the Monk". he too never knew the Doctor from Gallifrey, and the Eighth Doctor remarked how they hadn't seen each other since the Doctor was in his first(Hartnell) incarnation.


 * However, in the Sixth Doctor audio The Rani Elite, the Sixth Doctor mentions his old friend from the Academy on Gallifrey..Mortimus. So clearly Graeme Garden's "Monk" and this "Mortimus" from the Academy must be different Time Lords.


 * But then, to complicate issues, Rufus Hound plays a character called "the Meddling Monk" who encounters the Second, Third, Fourth, and Eighth Doctors. And is also shown to be alive and well after the Time War has ended.

How does this all fit together? It doesn't. However, this article would have it do so. As some examples of blatant falsehood.


 * The character is said to have always been a Time Lord.


 * The character is given the name "The Monk". Which was never his television name. Plus, many non-tv stories never refer to him as such. As one example the article for 4-Dimensional Vistas refers throughout to "the Monk", even though the word "monk" NEVER appears, or is even hinted at, in that story.


 * The two Mortimuses are fused together. Cornell's Mortimus explicitly never knew the Doctor on Gallifrey. While there was another Mortimus who was goof friends with the Doctor at the Academy on Gallifrey. Why are they treated as a single character? Because they have the same name? So, should every character called, say "David" be made a single character?


 * By Big Finish's own wording, Rufus Hound and Graeme Garden can't be the same character.


 * There are multiple reliable sources stating that he is the Master. While far from definitive, this wiki treats it as some laughable fringe fan theory, with nothing to back it up.

"
 * Again, no character called "the Monk" or "the Meddling Monk" ever appeared before before Follow That Tardis!
 * The Big One: Peter Butterworth never played a Time Lord on television. And Peter Butterworth never played a character called "The Monk" or "The Meddling Monk" or "Mortimus" on television. He played a human time traveller from the future, whose real identity was never actually revealed.


 * In order to do a single article, trying to merge different interpretations, and also pick and choose what is "valid", definite POV is used. This article speaks about "the Monk" this and "The Monk" that with unsupported authority.


 * This article shows everything that is wrong with organised fandom.


 * Thread:278505 Najawin ☎  09:25, October 20, 2020 (UTC)


 * That doesn't actually address any of the issues though, does it? It basically puts hands to ears, and says "I can't hear you! I can't hear you! Lalalala!". More proof that this article is someone's personal beliefs, rather than what is actually presented in-narrative(let alone what the creators themselves actually said).


 * And it's hilarious that these people are so quick to add links, and demand you post squiggles, yet neither of these people actually addressed the issues at hand. That speaks volumes.


 * Hello again! (Sigh.)


 * What Najawin sent you isn't actually the more relevant link. The more relevant link is my take-down of your general arguments at Thread:284245. What's bizarre about all your rambling manifestos about "the Monk" and his ilk is that you simultaneously don't want us to apply retroactive continuity about Time Lords to 1960's stories — and yet, your entire argument also rests on acting as though all sources about a given character have to be consistent or else it's somehow not the same character.


 * None of the accounts of "who Butterworth used to play" need to fit with each other in the slightest for us to cover them on one page. Heaven knows few accounts of the Eighth Doctor's life and death tally with each other. The thing is that if it's meant to be the same individual played by Butterworth in The Time Meddler, we'll cover it on the same page. That page is called "The Monk" by consensus because that's the name the character is best-known by; but in theory it could just as well be at "The Time Meddler", "Time Meddler", "Meddling Monk", "Mortimus", or even "Time traveller (The Time Meddler)". All of those would be accurate names for the page. It's just that we can't title the page everything at once.


 * Where you are correct is that with all the conflicting accounts of what this fellow calls himself, we should probably strive to use the names given by each individual sources in individually-sourced statement. Information from COMIC: 4-Dimensional Vistas does belong on this page, sorry. But a paragraph sourced to that story should refer to him as "the Time Meddler", not "the Monk". And so on.


 * It would be tremendously helpful if, for once, you could actually perform such edits, with care and restraint, instead of channelling all of your energy into these talk page and forum rants. (It would be all the more helpful if you could create yourself an account, too. I cannot force you to do this. But I cannot recommend it enough. It would make contacting you easier, and also likely make your argument seem more reputable to a lot of users. I really cannot imagine why, after so many years, you persist in these anonymous edits.)


 * Therefore, please actually perform the edits detailed above (and none others) on The Monk page before you come back here and continue arguing for even more radical changes. This will help reassure me and the rest of the Wiki that you're not just pursuing debate for the sake of debate, and are actually interested in materially improving the Wiki. Understood? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  13:47, October 20, 2020 (UTC)

"What Najawin sent you isn't actually the more relevant link."

While true, I'm not here to actually engage with this user, I've realized such a thing is pointless. I'm here to point out to future users that this has already been discussed and there's been policy made about it. As discussed at Talk:The Three Doctors (novelisation), the user has repeatedly lied about my actual position on these issues (even after I've corrected them), no good can come from me engaging, so instead I simply post the relevant ruling for future users, note that this is a T:POINT violation, and move on. Najawin ☎  02:08, October 21, 2020 (UTC)


 * If someone does perform such edits, they get reverted. But, again, this just shows the attitude here. And all your blathering doesn't change the fact.


 * Nobody has reverted edits of yours rewording stories that use the phrase "the time meddler" instead of "the monk" to use the former phrase (obvious precedent for this exists, see Talk:Tenth Doctor (Journey's End)). Instead people have reverted edits of yours that insist resolutely that such a character is, for instance, human, or a member of The Doctor's species, or your continual violation of T:NPOV on The Three Doctors (novelisation). Najawin ☎  07:43, October 21, 2020 (UTC)


 * …While I share your frustration, I have to admit I actually find the thought of slapping The Doctor's species on the infobox appealing. I don't believe that’s been discussed yet. It would necessitate some edits on that page, of course. But it is true that the one solid fact about the Monk throughout his appearances is that he's of the same species as the Doctor, whatever that is. Since it's preferred not to put disputed facts in the infobox, finding a way to state that fact in the infobox, rather than the somewhat shakier idea that he is a Time Lord, might be for the best.


 * (It was too major a change for it to be good practice for 197.83.246.141 to just up and change it: it should be discussed here first. But I do think the idea has merit.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  10:26, October 21, 2020 (UTC)


 * If it weren't for the The Timeless Children contemplating things, I would agree that "the Doctor's species" could be added, but, personally, I don't see a way that we could re-write that page in a way that would allow the inclusion of other characters (apart from the ones who are descended from the Doctor and share their biological data) and still keep the information regarding the Timeless Child. Also, I would like to point out that while it has been stated that the Monk and the Doctor are the same species or have "come from the same place" as The Time Meddler puts it, at this point in the Doctor's life, they did not know of their past as the Timeless Child. So while they may have believed themselves to have been a particular species, it does not necessarily mean that they were correct in that belief, as a large part of their life had been wiped from their memory. Like I said, that one episode really complicates things. LauraBatham ☎  12:41, October 21, 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps then, may I suggest "The Monk's species"? Epsilon (Contact me) 12:45, October 21, 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with that alternative. LauraBatham ☎  12:55, October 21, 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem viable to me, tbh. There's not enough information about the Monk's species on its own terms to justify a page. I really think a paragraph at The Doctor's species explaining the situation would be for the best. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  12:56, October 21, 2020 (UTC)
 * This has got me thinking. Should we create "Iris Wildthyme's species"? Epsilon  (Contact me) 12:59, October 21, 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with linking it to the Doctor's species is that it implies that the Monk is the same species as the Doctor by all accounts, which is not true. So I suppose it would depend on how that paragraph is worded as to whether it would work or not. If you were to manage it, it would probably have to be part of the lead though to avoid confusion. Or perhaps put a disclaimer on The Timeless Child info saying that that particular account only refers to the Doctor (and, by extension, their descendants). LauraBatham ☎  13:15, October 21, 2020 (UTC)
 * Or maybe I'm just over-complicating things. Perhaps we could say something like:
 * Most accounts, (TV: The Time Meddler (TV story) etc) though not all, (TV: The Timeless Children (TV story)) suggested that "the Monk" was the same species as the Doctor.
 * Ideally, I would put this at the end of the lead. LauraBatham ☎  13:22, October 21, 2020 (UTC)


 * The article in question also discusses the half human issue, even ignoring TTC. It really was never appropriate to conflate "the Doctor's Species" with "the Monk's Species". Besides, "coming from the same place" doesn't mean they're the same species. We have multiple accounts in the Whoniverse of different sentient races living in the same location. Most often they look different from one another, but that wording in particular doesn't discount a Kaled/Thal situation (in the sense of two races that look alike, not the war). We would need to find specific wording stating that they were specifically the same race as the Doctor. Najawin ☎  18:44, October 21, 2020 (UTC)
 * With my admin hat on: if no consensus can be reached, and considering infobox information has to be non-disputed, I think we're just going to have to leave the infobox field blank.


 * The lead, with possibly a more detailed section later in the page, can give better context and a more qualified link to "the Doctor's species". (e.g. "The Monk, at any rate, came from the same civilisation as the Doctor; the Doctor's origin and the circumstances of their early life were themselves a fraught subject". --Scrooge MacDuck  ☎  18:48, October 21, 2020 (UTC)

I have no qualms about a heavily qualified lead on the Monk's page linking to the Doctor's Species in the matter you're suggesting. I do think that putting it in the infobox is speculation though. Najawin ☎  18:53, October 21, 2020 (UTC)


 * I also have no problems with it being in the lead. In fact, I quite like Scrooge's example. LauraBatham ☎  00:34, October 22, 2020 (UTC)


 * Rather randomly stumbling upon this mess of a conversation, I agree that Scrooge's quote is seems like a very apt solution. My only modification would be specifying that "future human" and "Time Lord" are the two main possibilities. – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 19:35, November 18, 2020 (UTC)