Talk:The Master

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.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 08:23, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Eleven Masters image
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.  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)

I agree with Skittles, the Deathworm is the Bruce Master. It isn't a separate incarnation. Bigredrabbit 06:25, July 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.   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.  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:


 * 1) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


 * Added it to page. BroadcastCorp. 18:00, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

I again reiterate my displeasure at this idea. All respect for the work that's gone into it, but it misses the point of an infobox. By defintion, an infobox summarizes. It's not there to have every single fact jammed into it. Botho of Skittles "first and last" image above is far, far superior from a design standpoint, and from a symbollic one. Just because we have the power to cram 10 pictures into two rows doesn't mean it's a good idea'. I absolutely loathe that pictures which are not clearly canonical are included in the infobox of a main character. You'll never convince me that an image on a cover of a non-visual product "counts" for what that character is. Audio and prose are not visual mediums, and we shouldn't be including one artist's representation of those Masters. Not because, for example, the Dust Breeding Master isn't canonical himself, but because he does not come from a visual medium. Charlotte Pollard does not look like India Fisher in my mind. Lucie Miller does not look like the girl off Two Packets of Crisps. I am free to imagine such characters as I will, and a single artist's conception — especially if that person was working for a totally different company like Panini when he or she drew the image — is beyond unacceptable. It's like takin' a Dickey Howett sketch from Doctor Who? and using it in the infobox of the Fifth Doctor.

Guys, please, be reasonable. We are illustrating one of the main characters in our little fictional world here. The picture should represent the enduring images of the character. Apparently two is too few for you guys for whatever reason. At least make it a requirement of the picture that the included incarnations must:


 * have been in at least one whole story
 * have come from a story told in a visual medium

How bout we compromise and cut it to:
 * Delgado
 * One of the two decayed Masters
 * Ainley
 * Roberts
 * The DWM "bald" Master from the Eighth Doctor's era
 * Simm

That leaves us with six. Jacobi's out, because he didn't play the Master for but two minutes, and he's a minor (if important) part of the whole three-episode story. There's a reason he's not credited as playing the Master. The dude from DWM is in to quickly indicate there was more going on with the Master outside TV. That's more than a fair compromise. I only want two. You guys want 10. I'll settle for six. More than meetin' ya halfway. . . Six pictures will at least be easier to see at 250px width than ten. 21:02:59 Sun 10 Jul 2011


 * Well, I didn't want to just offer comments without also giving a concrete candidate. I said that I'd offer a compromise of 6, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that a) that would only offer a very repetitive, symmetrical design and b) the "decrepit" master is really just the Delgado incarnation in decline. Or at least it can certainly be argued that way.  So he didn't seem all that crucial to me.


 * Here, then, are "The Five Masters". This instantly tells a visual story.  We see Simm at the Master's finest hour, quite literally the moment the Master saves the universe.  Simm dominates the design because he's the current Master, but also Delgado, as the first Master, gets to be right at the heart of proceedings.  The DWM Master is there in slightly exaggerated propotions to his own importance, but this is because he's effectively standing in for all those non-TV Masters.  The pic instantly tells the reader, "Hey, there are other Masters out there besides these guys.  Finally, we've got Ainley and Roberts in small, but nicely clear and light pictures.  This isn't the "dresz for the occasion" moment tha gets way too much play; this is the more playful side of Roberts.  And it's the older, more contemplative Ainley of Survival.


 * Again, I think a Delgado/Simm split is fine, but this compromise with those of you who want the full 10 or 11 "slate" of Masters is a good one.  It's got a radically different design than anything that's been proposed so far It's immediately clear who all five images are, even at 250px, and none of the pictures have been used yet on this wiki.  Thanks for considering it, and I look forward to your comments.   04:22:40 Mon 11 Jul 2011


 * So we can't show the image I added then? BroadcastCorp. 07:07, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the Delgado/Simm splits use new images that I "collected". However, it's possible someone has uploaded similar images before. Anyway, I like Czech's image style, but I think your side lining all but Simm. I can't really see a way around this apart from expanding the image so it's probably a good bet. Skittles the hog-- Talk 10:07, July 11, 2011 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

Then let's go back to the image I originally wanted, with just the TV Masters. Is that OK? Or do you want the alternative, which shows all the Masters televised or not? Because something must be agreed on, this consversation has gone on too long. When it finishes, which hopefully will be soon, I'll archive it. BroadcastCorp. 12:11, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

It's not gone on too long, we are trying to come to an agreement. I doesn't matter how long it takes. No, we should not use the "TV Masters" image.-- 12:32, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Then we move onto the all-Masters image. How about that then? BroadcastCorp. 12:23, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Have you read CzechOut's points above?-- 12:32, July 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * We need to continue this dicussion how ever long it take, until we reach a conclusion. We might get new ideas and better ideas while it still going on. I do like the 10 Master image, I really do as it shows all the know incarnations of the Master, which the page is about. How ever, I also like CzechOut's idea, but a couple of changes, the Simm Master's image needs to be made small (perhaps moving it left a bit) and down the top left hand size, there should be two smaller Master images (like there is on the bottom right) this could be another comic strip and the child? Or the Master from the start of the TV movie. I agree with not including Yana: he was under the influence on the Chameleon Arch and was never credited as the Master, and as we saw with the Doctor, they don't really act like they normally would when under the influence of the Chameleon Arch, they can in away become someone else, and that why Yana should not be include.


 * There are other possibilities. We do what we did with the Cyberman page. Remove the infobox and just have the image at the top of the page (first Master, a comic Master (to show he lives and appear in comics and not just TV and then the last Master) or just have no infobox and no image and just have a small description of each incarnation at a point on the page, and have an image for each Master next to it. Mini-mitch\talk 12:40, July 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with the all-Masters image? BroadcastCorp. 12:56, July 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * What one? The eleven Master or the 10 Master? Mini-mitch\talk 14:39, July 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * The 10 Master one. BroadcastCorp. 16:15, July 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Then read User:CzechOut's comments above, and you may find your answer. Mini-mitch\talk 16:24, July 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * BroadcastCorp., leave archiving this discussion to an admin as we don't want to jump the gun on this heated discussion.
 * I also like CzechOut's design change, I don't quite agree with the all the requirements, but certainly at least one whole story is a good requirement to help us limit our scope. I would prefer to have Delgado as a main image, but, I understand the constraints of the image and of the source material the Simm image is wider than images of the others, and especially in this new format it limits what we can do with some images. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:34, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so, CzechOut, how 'bout this: This is an alternative version of the Ten-masters image: BroadcastCorp. 08:20, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

I like that, it does contain all the tv incarnations, plus the other media incarnations, and it repeats the same structure as the doctor's image. --Ceryu 03:01, July 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * All you've done is taken the same images and rearrange them into an even uglier pattern that now has literal white space built in to it.. No.  You just keep presenting the same visual concepts over and and over again — none of which are very far away from the original picture that was on the page and started this mess in the first place.  You're just re-inventing the wheel and addressing none of my concerns.  I don't see it as a virtue that this repeats the structure of the infobox image at the Doctor.  That image needs to be corrected and slimmed down, too.  We don't need all eleven Doctors to illustrate the concept of the Doctor any more than we need all these Masters. What made the Journal of Impossible Things and the flashback in The Lodger so interesting visually was that they weren't just a flat recitation of all previous incarnations.  It was just a hint of the past to indicate the different lifetimes; it wasn't all of them in shot simultaneously.


 * So that's content. Give the flavour. Don't bore me with every detail of the whole meal.


 * Stylistically, variety of picture size is the key to making an acceptable design. You keep doing the "Hollywood Squares" grid, or variations on that. Every pic is the same size, and you're just shuffling them around a grid.  That's just boring.  Use unexpected geometry for greater interest.


 * Honestly, the last design makes me feel like you're not even listening to my objections and attempting compromise. So I'll say it all again. The Dust Breeding Master is an absolute no go, because that's a Master from a totally non-visual medium.  The Tipple Master is no good, because there's no narrative guarantee that's a different guy from Ainley. Plus, that's not even a clear picture of him, but of his prison cell.   The child Master is a no go, because according to other stories, he wouldn't have even been the Master at this point, and because the actor didn't even speak on e damn line.  I don't think you need the decrepit Master because the narrative implication is that he's the same guy as Delgado.  And we seem to have achieved a kind  of agreement elsewhere in the thread that Jacobi is largely playing Yana, not the Master.  Seriously, you don't need more than the five images I've put up to illustrate this topic.  If you don't like the exact design I've done, fine.  Do another one.  Set yourself the problem of doing five images in such a way that there's no white space.  See if you don't come up with a more interesting design than what you've given so far.  But don't come back with a 10-image one, cause that shows no willingness to compromise.  I (and others) want 2; some people have argued for TV-only; others seem basically good with the notion that the incarnation has to have been in one full story; you (and others) want 10 or 11.   So let's just cut to the chase, go to the middle ground of five Masters and be done with it.  These five Masters are a good compromise of everyone's position in this thread.  I'm not saying you have to love my design, but keeping to those five represents a compromise that will let us move forward.   04:38:16 Wed 13 Jul 2011

Summarising images so far
This discussion has been going on for...some time, so here's a quick summary of the images that have been uploaded so far;


 * The image of the six television Masters was suggested by Cortion.
 * Countered by numerous users for not including any other media.

Following intense discussion a compromise to have a "summary" image of the first and last Masters so far. After another discussion it appeared the desire was for this image of the "Eleven Masters" be returned to the page, as it was in previous edits of the article. Following this another discussion was engaged, deciding the Deathworm Master was not an image that should be featured. This redesign was noted as being a departure from previous designs, utilising different sized images and different screenshots to those previously featured.
 * This and this image, both featuring Delgado and Simm were suggested by Skittles the hog.
 * This image was then suggested by BroadcastCorp, featuring Nine Masters (omitting the child, pre-TVM and Deathworm images)
 * Then this image of ten Masters was suggested, also by BroadcastCorp, this included all of the previous Eleven Masters images, except the Deathworm Master.
 * A re-designed image was suggested by CzechOut, this image using a different layout from previous images, featuring Simm, the DWM Master, Delgado, Ainley and Roberts
 * BroadcastCorp. then suggested this image, using the same images from this image but re-arranged.

So, just so everyone can see all the images lined up;

Which of the above do you like? Six Ten Five Alternate Ten


 * I think this should be the basis of our next round of voting, with the top two vote-getters going into the final found. 20:14:18 Sun 24 Jul 2011


 * I didn't mean to disaffect anyone.
 * Just, as I said discussions in this theme sometimes run our of steam, I was trying to settle on a style guide to inform us in the future, rather than specific images. Just in case anyone ventured to add a new image for the article I wanted a clear idea of where the community was, in the simplest of terms. So that we don't have to go through this again in 6 months time or something.
 * Prior to this poll we had a too large a spread of images to see a clear picture of things. But CzechOut's new poll has simplified things more-so from the Top-10 list. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:41, July 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. Turns out I was wrong to have gone for my version of the second round poll, too.


 * Thing is, I now think we have to disqualify all but file:TheFiveMasters.jpg. The others, it turns out, are canonically invalid, and not just because two of the four uses images of a non-visual incarnation, as interpreted by a freelancer for DWM.  No, all three of the others include the so-called Terserus (i.e. Fourth Doctor) Master and he is, canonically, the same incarnation as the Delgado Master.  As revealed in EDA: Legacy of the Daleks, Susan uses her psychic powers to cause a feedback in his TARDIS console, which thereby burns and mangles his flesh.  I had always suspected that, but didn't realise it was actually canon until I listened to this months DW Book Club podcast.  And it really is there in black and white. The scene couldn't be more explicit.  So, we can't really have an infobox image which uses two images of the same incarnation.  It'd be like having a picture of the Meglos Fourth Doctor and the Robot Fourth Doctor on The Doctor's infobox page.  Yes, radically different appearance, but it's still the same guy.


 * We currently have no other candidates that have omitted the Beaver/Pratt Master, so either we take mine, or we allow people to re-submit with the "late Delgado" Master omitted.  03:52:04 Fri 29 Jul 2011


 * BTW, please see Talk:The Master (Tersurus) for extended passages from Legacy of the Daleks that show why we can't consider the Pratt/Beavers Master as a separate incarnation from the Delgado Master. They are merely different actors playing the same incarnation at different points in his life.  We would never consider putting a picture of any of the three actors who played young Sarah Janes into that character's infobox, so we clearly can't consider doing that here.   05:03:37 Fri 29 Jul 2011

Well by that logic, isn't the Ainley Master also the same incarnation, since he is just the Pratt/Beevers Master inhabiting Tremas?Icecreamdif 08:20, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've long argued that all these separate Master pages are illogical for that very reason. However, the difference, one could argue, with the Ainley Master is that he is at least the mingling of the Delgado Master with another being (Tremas), and is therefore biologically distinct from the Delgado Master — or at least arguably so.  What can't be argued, however, is that there is any genetic/incarnational distinction between the Delgado Master and the Pratt version.  The Pratt version is just the Delgado version after having received permanent injuries.  02:36:20 Sat 30 Jul 2011

I see where you are coming from. But the dacayed Master is said to be his thriteenth incarnation, the Delgado Master isn't. For all we know, he could have regenerated, and put himself into such a horrible state. 08:39:58 Sat


 * This is just becoming all the more complicated.
 * I should have remembered Legacy's scenes with the Master.
 * I'd suggest either using CzechOut's or using Skittles' earlier submitted image of Delgado and Simm. Skittles' image was one we settled on at one point in the discussion. Though CzechOut's has been voted within both sets of polls as being preferred by a little under half the vote, but now it seems is the only valid in the poll.
 * Ultimately I think that CzechOut's image supports the idea of an infobox as summarising the article. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:24, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

If we are considering the Pratt/Beevers Master to be the same incanation as the Delgado Master, then shouldn't there pages be merged?Icecreamdif 04:45, July 31, 2011 (UTC)