Forum:Temporary forums/Splitting the Master's page

Peoples of the universe, please attend carefully. The proposal that follows is vital to the future of you all… Given that this is the 51st anniversary of the Master, I think it is particularly appropriate that today be the day we finally address the long yearned re-split of The Master. [https://twitter.com/NoNotTheMemes/status/1585386084376399872 We need a split. We need the Master-split].

It should be noted from the start that splitting the page is, in itself, non-controversial. We have a cacophony of precedent for splitting individual incarnations of a Time Lord (e.g., the Monk, the Rani, Romana) –but I suspect that won’t even be debated. There’s a fairly broad consensus on Talk:The Master which suggests to me that the Master-split is a question of when and how, not if. Indeed, User:CzechOut agreed as much when the matter was raised in the Discussions area some time back, merely arguing against doing so through a Discussions thread rather than a proper Forum debate. The reasons that the pages were merged back in 2010/2011 were that (1) there were remarkably few Master incarnations and thus it wouldn’t be confusing and (2) there aren’t narrative names for the various incarnations. Both of these reasons have aged rather poorly.

To the first, this simply isn’t true anymore. Even ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of sources now treat the ‘Delgado’ Master and the ‘Beevers/Pratt’ Master as separate incarnations — compare Doorway to Hell,  The Two Masters, Masterful, which all hold that they are distinct incarnations, with Legacy of the Daleks, the sole source holding that the Decayed Master was a crispy Delgado — there are far more incarnations now than there were before. Since 2011, we’ve had two new televised incarnations (Michelle Gomez and Sacha Dhawan) both of whom have more appearances than either of the preceding NuWho incarnations on both TV and within the EU AND several EU incarnations (James Dreyfus, Milo Parker, Alex Macqueen, Gina McKee the so-called ‘War Child’ Master). Furthermore, the incarnation portrayed by Derek Jacobi is no longer limited to a singular episode, but now headline his own long-running spin-off. Having all of these incarnations on the same page has made it not only difficult for readers to parse, but difficult to load.

Back in 2011, we also had no multi-Master stories and thus no frame of reference for how to handle stolen bodies. Do they have distinct personalities? Or are they all the same incarnation with a different skin? Now, we know very explicitly that they are distinct. Masterful is fairly dispositive, explicitly distinguishing the two TV stolen bodies (Eric Roberts, Anthony Ainley) from the "original-flavour" Crispy Master (Geoffrey Beevers) and treating them as individual incarnations. Likewise, the I Am the Master blurb says that the book features “six incarnations”, which only tracks if the ‘Tremas’ Master and the Decayed Master are treated separately. Covering them on the same page would be disingenuous

As to the second, we should look to when this decision was made. This decision was made in 2011. This was before ‘the War Doctor’ and ‘the Fugitive Doctor’. These incarnations are named not on the basis of their numeric order or from a narrative title, but on the basis of external material. Even if we ignore that Michelle Gomez’s incarnation has a narrative name (“Missy”) and Gina McKee’s incarnation has a narrative name (“the Lumiat”), the other mainline incarnations have names that have either been used in behind-the-scenes materials (“Decayed Master”, “Old Master”, “Movie Master” [though I shudder at that one], “Reborn Master”, “War Master”, “Saxon Master”) or can easily be derived from their structure (“Tremas Master”, “Bruce Master”, “Spy Master”). Ironically, the only incarnation that would be difficult to name would be the ‘Delgado’ Master. Ultimately, however, I don’t think that naming the incarnations is necessary in the short term. We already have an in-text naming convention that will be used in the meanwhile, so story name dabs should be fine until individual pages can be agreed upon.

An additional sentiment has sometimes been discussed: that the Master's timeline being so confusing makes splitting them a bad idea. But the exact opposite is true! The more complex the timeline, the more useful it is to simply cover different Masters on different pages, without having to worry about putting it all in linear order.

What I suspect WILL be debated is along what lines will The Master be split. Here is what I propose:


 * 1) Mastertemplate - I’ve put together a template for use on individual pages based on the one we use for other Time Lords.
 * 2) The Master - A general landing page in the same vein as The Doctor.
 * 3) The Master's early life - As per the current practice, we will cover ambiguous accounts of a “young Master” there, as well as the versions portrayed by William Hughes and Milo Parker — so as to avoid taking a side on whether the latter two represent the same incarnation or not. Early Masters with their own pages, such as Dreyfus’s, will be mentioned briefly.
 * 4) The Master (The Destination Wars) - Covering the incarnation portrayed by James Dreyfus.
 * 5) The Master (Terror of the Autons) - Covering the incarnation portrayed by Roger Delgado.
 * 6) Decayed Master - This covers the incarnation of the Master portrayed by Geoffrey Beevers and Peter Pratt. This would cover everything from ‘’The Deadly Assassin’’ through to ‘’Planet of Dust’’, with redirects for each of his possessed bodies.
 * 7) The Master (The Keeper of Traken) - This covers the incarnation of the Master portrayed by Anthony Ainley.
 * 8) Old Master - This page would cover the ‘Tzun’ Master.
 * 9) The Master (The TV Movie) - This covers the incarnation of the Master portrayed by Eric Roberts.
 * 10) The Master (The Fallen) - This covers the incarnation of the Master from the comics that looks like a preacher.
 * 11) The Master (Scream of the Shalka) - This covers the incarnation of the Master from ‘’Scream of the Shalka’’ portrayed by Derek Jacobi. Under current policy, this would be invalid –but would still need to exist.
 * 12) The Master (Dominion) - This covers the incarnation of the Master portrayed by Alex Macqueen.
 * 13) War Master - This covers the incarnation of the Master portrayed by Derek Jacobi.
 * 14) The Master (Utopia) - This covers the incarnation of the Master portrayed by John Simm.
 * 15) Missy - This covers the incarnation of the Master portrayed by Michelle Gomez.
 * 16) The Lumiat - This covers the Lumiat.
 * 17) Spy Master - This covers the incarnation of the Master portrayed by Sacha Dhawan.
 * 18) The Master (The Curse of Fatal Death) - This covers the incarnation of the Master portrayed by Jonathan Pryce.
 * 19) The Master (The Then and the Now) - This covers the "War Child" incarnation from the aborted timeline shown in the Titan comics.

As stated above, with respect to the names, I think the best approach is to split it using story name dabs (with exceptions made for those with clear-cut names), and hold debates on the names for individual incarnations on their respective talk pages (e.g., Talk:The Master (The Keeper of Traken)).

I have created sandboxes for all of these pages, as well as the main Master page. Content on these pages can (and should) be edited and amended, but the structure is what I think is most important. I would like to draw particular attention to the Decayed Master page, since it is (in my opinion) rather ingenious –but may end up being the most controversial. All recursions to the Geoffrey Beevers body have been kept on a single page, rather than being split — because they are referenced in-universe as explicitly the same incarnation and are discussed out-of-universe as the same incarnation (in contrast to the “Fourteenth Doctor”). However, should this be controversial, I would be comfortable splitting that page into its component parts – but I personally believe that would be silly.

In future, I propose that we “pull a T:ROMANA” and develop a naming convention for the Master incarnations – but I believe that doing so at present would delay a very necessary step. The Master, in its current form, is unreadable. I believe the best course of action is to split it using story name dabs (with exceptions made for those with clear cut names), and hold debates on the names for individual incarnations on their respective talk pages (e.g., Talk:The Master (The Keeper of Traken)).

As regards the omnipresence of the linking templates: until they can be phased out, it will be trivial to change e.g. from pointing to The Master to simply pointing to Missy. As such, with relatively few edits, all the current links will reremain functional. NoNotTheMemes ☎  13:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Memes and I have disagreed loudly and vehemently regarding the Master in the past, most recently regarding the Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration. But I've been mulling over his Master incarnation sandboxes for, well, years now, and I have to admit – they've totally won me over. Some aspects which I think place this proposal, specifically, ahead of all the failed proposals of yesteryear:
 * wisely delaying the debate about naming to the talk pages, rather than trying to settle it all right here and now. Story dabs represent a neutral and natural Schelling point so we can get the split done without getting bogged down in the details of (for instance) whether or not "Bruce Master" is unusably speculative.
 * the Decayed Master masterstroke. Rather than picking one or the other conflicting account of the Master's timeline (which was one of the originally-cited reasons for consolidation into a single page), we can cover the Decayed Master as an archetype, linking to separate body possessions where they apply and discussing different accounts of the regeneration timeline in a neutral fashion.
 * My belief is that this proposal is the best possible vehicle for swiftly and unanimously cleaning up the unreadable, borderline uneditable mess that is The Master once and for all. I bombastically support the above. – n8 (☎) 14:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Pardon me the pun but... what a Masterful opening post, Memes. I think it's entirely unsurprising that I fully support this splitting, given I've also been preparing and updating lists of appearances for each incarnation that'd require one (and yes, they'd be renamed accordingly to whatever we decide at the end of this thread).
 * Now, taking n8's cue of citing the The Power of the Doctor situation. That one already gave us quite a lengthy and somewhat heated discussion at Talk:The Master on how to deal with Dhawan's-into-Whittaker's-forced regeneration. I think it's sensible that we do not derail this discussion by reigniting this flame. Let's, for the sake of brevity of this thread, keep information about that "incarnation" under Spy Master/The Master (Spyfall) first, and once the split it done we can begin that anew, if users think it necessary.
 * This is of course not a final ruling on this discussion whatsoever, given it was just born, but rather a "ruling"/comment on this specific bit of the Master-split. OncomingStorm12th ☎  14:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * My only worry about splitting the Masters was what to do about Pratt/Beevers. I'm satisifed with the suggestion. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  14:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * To Jack; Pratt and Beevers are playing the same incarnation of the Master. Not like the idea that Delado’s Master is the same as the Decayed Master, which Memes so wonderfully argues against, but in this case literally the same unchanged incarnation of the character, so I don’t see the issue there. ——Danniesen ☎  14:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * To the general topic, I completely support the split of the Master page into several. ——Danniesen ☎  14:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't have an issue with it. I specifically said that I'm satisfied. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  14:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I also have some strongly held opinion on the Master, but as someone who hasn’t really been able to open that page without my browser crashing every so often, I think this is a really strong proposal, and a really needed one.


 * Having read through the proposed sandboxes, I think they’re our best bet to get the split done in a clear and concise manner, and any more controversial topic such as page names can easily be dealt with through talk pages, allowing everyone to chime in with their point of view, without it hindering the actual process of splitting the page.


 * Overall, I strongly support this proposal and I think it is a good step forward for the wiki, for all users, dedicated editors and casual readers alike. Liria10 ☎  14:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

To Jack; I think I misread your comment as to if you thought Pratt and Beevers were playing seperate incarnations altogether. My bad. —Danniesen ☎  14:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Newish here, but emphatically in favour of The Split (thank you for that earworm, NoNotTheMemes); no strong feelings about the page names – all the proposed ones sound reasonable – except to note that we're wiki editors! quibbling about nomenclature is what we do! And those specifics don't have to get in the way of broadly fixing a long-standing problem. Starkidsoph ☎  14:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Might as well throw my hat of support into the ring. We can figure out individual names for each page on their talk pages, what matters is splitting the page. Every fan and every story agrees that each master should be treated as their own character. Besides, we have already started this for less prominent characters like Rassilon. As for the templates like, I feel like for now we could just do what we have on Rassilon (those templates still exist, but they direct you to a short subject on the Rassilon page that contains "Main article:" at its very top to let you know there is a greater page) Editoronthewiki  ☎  16:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * So I'm afraid I'm going to throw a wrench in the discussion here. First and foremost, I agree with the proposal above, predicated on revisiting the Doctor/Master issue in the future (as the compromise solution to that had people specifically state that they wanted to revisit it when we were splitting The Master) and also a larger discussion about naming conventions. I don't think anyone objects to these, but I want to make them noted. The issue here is that since it was mentioned, I went back and found User:CzechOut's comment. While it would obviously be better for Czech to defend this position himself, I'm reminded of our CoFD thread, where we didn't actively ask people who were historically against certain positions to join the thread and it potentially compromised our analysis. I'm not certain that Czech still holds the view that he's talking about as being the one they used historically. I think from his comment he might even be saying it's no longer sufficient. But it's not entirely clear, and I think we should try to find people who argued this position at the time in order to try to make sure nothing is slipping through the cracks. Najawin ☎  16:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Whilst I agree that it'd be good to find people involved in the original decision making process to get their views, what if they don't show up? Are we just unable to make any changes because someone who isn't active might have a good counter argument? I think as long as this temp forum is advertised (e.g. is widely known about), whatever conclusion is reached by the expiration of this thread should be enacted, regardless of whether the people involved in the original decision show up or not. Just my two cents, but I don't think enacting change should rely on people who were around for the original. TheSpaghetOutcast ☎  16:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I support this, I dunno why this wasn't a thing already tbh, the reasoning behind keeping it just one page just seems extremely flimsy. TheSpaghetOutcast ☎  16:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I also strongly support the Master Split. Though, honestly, everyone here has already said pretty much everything I have ever thought about The Split, so I don't have any meaningful suggestions to add other than my support. It is very imperative we keep this Thread focused on splitting the Master and not what we will name the pages. 16:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I absolutely support this proposal. This is by far the biggest complaint I see with the wiki and is a long time coming. I commend User:NoNotTheMemes for putting in the effort making those subpages to make this whole process easier. Bongo50   ☎  16:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I too support this proposal and I hope to see it executed ASAP. As noted, issues such as potential naming disputes can be settled later. MrThermomanPreacher ☎  16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * So, User:Najawin, about CzechOut's comment: I don't actually think we need to worry about the question User:TheSpaghetOutcast raised, as such. Unlike the Curse of Fatal Death issue, Czech's post doesn't actually claim to have some personal spin on the question that he hadn't voiced yet: it merely explains where the original decision came from, and says quite clearly that Czech had, by that point, come to view it as unsuitable. What he says is simply this:


 * And that's exactly what we're doing. Obviously if Czech wants to join it, or if someone wants to devil's-advocate for the old way of doing things, that'd be interesting, but Czech's post makes no demands to wait for him; indeed, quite the opposite. So I think we're fine discussing (and, if it comes to it, closing this) without his point of view in the matter. OncomingStorm12th ☎  17:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Full support. That is all. Moosana ☎  17:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the reading that it's this cut and dry, OS12. Specifically, this section of his comment:

This is a specific argument that cuts against the proposal we have here. (Not one I agree with, for the record.) I think we should actively seek out people involved in the original discussion to voice their views on this using their talk pages. If, by the end of the three weeks, they don't respond, well, that's life. Najawin ☎  17:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * But that's inaccurate - we've had Delgado's regeneration depicted atleast once, and the audios now repeatedly state that Delgado and the Decaying Master are separate incarnations - same with the Decaying Master and the stolen bodies - they're not regenerations, but Tremas and Bruce are very much separate incarnations in terms of personality and appearance, and are classed as separate incarnations in things like Masterful. This isn't really an argument that holds any weight these days. TheSpaghetOutcast ☎  17:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Again, I do not agree with this argument. To my understanding the argument failed at the time based on books. But I think we should actively try to figure out why the people who thought this at the time thought this. See, again, our CoFD thread, where everyone who engaged with the thread was in favor of validity and the only person who argued against was me playing Devil's advocate. Since then we've found new evidence that makes the issue more complicated. I think it's best practice to actively attempt to have differing views in a thread. Najawin ☎  17:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * But having dissenting arguments/opinions is not necessary. We can have full agreement on something.


 * Furthermore, the potential argument you raised, @Najawin, was not one against splitting the Master, but of "are these seperate incarnations?", and this thread is specifically for splitting the Master, surely? As such, our only priorty should be slitting the page, and any bugs can be discussed later; I genuinely doubt anyone opposes splitting the Master, only people having different opinons on how to do so. 17:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * From Meme's original post:


 * What I suspect WILL be debated is along what lines will The Master be split. Here is what I propose:


 * This is precisely the thing that he suspected will be discussed in this thread, contra your contention.
 * And while I agree that dissent isn't necessary, it's best practice to try to find it imo. It's actively harmed at least one major thread I've been a part of when we failed to seek out dissenting voices. Najawin ☎  17:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Najawin The difference between this and the Curse of Fatal Death validity issue is that this *is* extremely cut and dry - the vast majority of modern sources and authorial intent refer to the four Classic Masters as distinct iterations - with only about one source sorta suggesting that Delgado and Decayed are the same - and even then, it's established that the Decayed Master is basically distinct due to the mental and physical attacks. There's not really any evidence that could surface that could justify all four Classic Who Masters being justified as the same, the audios have definitively established the four as different incarnations in their own continuity, so that's reason alone to separate them. I think you're coming at this with the assumption that we'll miss something and it'll end up like the Curse of Fatal Death validity debate - but that's a world apart - we're not talking about validity here - we're just asking for the one Master page to be split up in order to make things more user friendly and not a mess. Separating all four makes sense from a user-friendliness level as well as an "That's what the audios establish one". We can address the other accounts that disagree with a "Some Sources say" thing like usual. Additionally, this issue only relates to those four incarnations - what about all the post-Beevers ones, like the War Master and Missy? Looking at this thread, the support for this change is overwhelming - it's clear this is a change that has been sought after for ages - even in the original threads this split was wanted - just at the time it was a lot harder for a number of factors which have since changed. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd actually have a strong counter argument for this change - the OP post addresses basically all the original arguments against a split, and, as a Master nerd myself, who knows the ins and outs of this stuff, I can't think of any really reasonable counter-argument against this. It's a change that'd improve the forums for the better and help newer users locate lore on specific iterations of the Master which is currently buried amongst 50 years worth of material they're not looking for. So as I said earlier - the lack of opposition shouldn't stand in the way of enacting this change. TheSpaghetOutcast ☎  18:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * We thought the CoFD issue was cut and dry as well, there was overwhelming consensus in that thread as well. Look, I don't think what I'm asking for is unreasonable here. I'm suggesting that we search out people who disagree with the consensus to engage with. If we can't find them by the three week mark, that's life. If they end up convincing others, we've got a problem on our hands and it's good that we went looking for alternative views. If they fail to move the needle, no harm no foul. This is a simple procedural issue that saves us time and headaches down the road. Najawin ☎  18:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, searching for dissenting viewpoints in the abstract is a good idea but the "people involved in the original thread" thing/Czech's existing "I was wrong about this" argument are just neither here or there. Times have changed… the arguments used back in the day holds minimal weight today, because we have information that we did not have at that time. There’s more sensibility in splitting the page than there was in 2011 even, based on that. ——Danniesen ☎  19:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Najawin, I agree in principle and it may yet be worth doing this, but I do think it's worthwhile keeping a sort of golden rule in mind – namely, the reason for the whole discussion, which is that one of the most trafficked pages on the wiki is essentially unusable. Fundamentally I do think that functioning as a wiki is a higher priority than making all the policies conform to The Gods Of Canon Which We Don't Even Officially Believe In Anyway.
 * Also, maybe this is just because I wasn't there, but I think we might be arguing slightly at cross purposes – can someone clarify whether the specific objections raised in that past discussion were completely against splitting at all, or just splitting Delgado from Pratt/Beevers? Because if it was only the latter then we should definitely go ahead with The Split on the whole, and relitigate Crispy's status to our hearts' content later.
 * Finally, off topic but does anyone know why Slot 2's page title is displaying all pretty without the "Tardis:Temporary_forums" bit in front and can we copy it? I DO NOT MEAN MOVE THE PAGE, nobody panic. Starkidsoph ☎  19:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * As Starkidsoph pointed out, the current The Master page does have a tendency to crash wiki-editors’ computers when loading it given how it is currently structured. Danniesen ☎  19:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Again, in the CoFD discussion we felt the same about times having changed. I also reiterate that this thread is explicitly about how to split the Master page, it says so in the opening post. It makes no sense to suggest that the Delgado/Pratt/Beevers issue should be discussed elsewhere, it's explicitly intended to be discussed here. Najawin ☎  19:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delgado needs to be split from Pratt/Beevers. The merge decision was made in 2010/2011, two years before the incarnation was explicitly established to be a separate incarnation from Roger Delgado. Legacy of the Daleks is the one story that stands in contrast to the multitude of stories that explicitly identify that the Thirteenth Master is not Roger Delgado, but Geoffrey Beevers (Mastermind, Planet of Dust, Day of the Master, And You Will Obey Me, The Two Masters, Doorway to Hell, Masterful). What's more, Legacy of the Daleks does not explicitly state the incarnations as the same. It merely states that the Master could not safely regenerate from the wounds that he suffered. "Failed regeneration" is often touted as a reason for the Decayed Master to look the way he does. Fans believed the Eighth Doctor regenerated into the Ninth Doctor, before Night of the Doctor proved them wrong. We're now in a situation where fans believed that the Decayed Master was a crispy Roger Delgado, before The Two Masters proved them wrong. Under my proposal, we still reference the idea that they may be the same incarnation on the Twelfth Master's page using accounts language --just as we reference the idea of the Eighth Doctor regenerating into the Ninth Doctor on the Eighth Doctor's page using account's language. NoNotTheMemes ☎  00:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I support this proposed split wholeheartedly. Pluto2 (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I too strongly support NoNotTheMemes's very thorough proposal. As for the whole issue centering around the Decayed Master, well, this is a large reason the page was combined in the first place! If we're going to split the pages, there seems little doubt to me that the incarnations as proposed by NoNotTheMemes are distinct characters, in-universe ( invited them separately in Masterful, among others) but also from a general encyclopedic perspective. If the Master is split, people will be looking for Ainley separate from Beevers, etc. It helps no one to have all of them on the same page and leads to a miniature version of the conundrum we currently have. And given that these incarnations are closely intertwined, but not quite the same as Pratt and Beevers's Decayed Master, I think the proposal here is the best way of going about it, where it's fully acknowledged they're part of the same regeneration on Decayed Master but are different bodies with different personalities. Chubby Potato  ☎  20:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you for the new earworm. I absolutely support split. How we'd handle the many Beevers Masters was a concern of mine, but your sandbox article is quite an elegant solution. SherlockTheII ☎  20:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I, again, wish to stress that I agree with you Memes. You're preaching to the choir. I'm making a point about a procedural issue here. As a result of this procedural issue being resolved, we might find people who are willing to argue this point with you. But I just think we should approach this issue correctly. Najawin ☎  00:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)