Talk:The Toymaker

Title
Aren't we cheating according to our naming conventions with this page? I would've thought that, like the Doctor, the Monk, the Master, the Rani and the 456, this character is properly the Celestial Toymaker, not just Celestial Toymaker. Course, that would mean changing The Celestial Toymaker to The Celestial Toymaker (TV story). Anyone else think this should be changed?  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  00:13, December 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't he often called just "Toymaker" by the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Doctors? In the same way the Tenth calls the Master, "Master", so the the 'Celestial' part is inferred to be his title? --Tangerineduel 12:59, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Could we revive this discussion? I agree with User:Tangerineduel. He is often called simply "the Toymaker". If "the Meddling Monk" is instead called The Monk to us, why is this joker not called The Toymaker?--Scrooge MacDuck ☎  19:36, July 27, 2020 (UTC)

My Wish
I wish they'd﻿ bring back the celestial toymaker. When I watched the serial, I was surprised by how good it was. He was a great villain, there's so much they could do with the character.

Gotta agree with you, but the talk page meant for discussions about how to improve this article, and not for saying your opinion about its subject. Opinions should go to The Howling :) Puchplimmirdeyslithin ☎  20:52, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

An Old One or a Guardian?
I was just wondering how we should classify the Toymaker. In both Divided Loyalties and The Quantum Archangel he's explicitly stated as being one of Guardians of Time. Yet in The Nightmare Fair (audio story) the Doctor states that he "originated in another universe before this one" meaning presumaely the Pre-Universe, where the Old Ones live, and also in both The Magic Mousetrap and Black and White the Doctor and Ace individually refer to him as an Elder God, which is another name for Great Old One. So I just wanted some clarification on whether he should be classified as one or not? If so I'll include Great Old One in his "species" column and mention it in "List of Great Old Ones". But I just wanted your thoughts before making the edits. Sutekh&#39;sGift ☎  17:22, June 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * As I recall, the backstory to Craig Hinton's work on the subject is that the Guardians, including the Toymaker, were the High Council of Time Lords (or rough equivalent) of the universe preceding this one - in other words, the two accounts of the Toymaker's identity are consistent. But I can't recall whether this is explicitly stated in any of his published books.86.178.206.178talk to me 19:18, December 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * If true, that's brilliant, since it even throws in the third possible identity (albeit offscreen), that of his being a Time Lord. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  21:14, October 11, 2018 (UTC)

Timeline
It seems highly questionable to place the events of Relative Dimensions (comic story) where the page currently does (directly after the events of The Celestial Toymaker). Since the Toyroom is growing so old as to be breaking down, and the Toymaker permanently leaves it at the end, one would presume it postdates the events of Solitaire (audio story) and The Magic Mousetrap (audio story) at the very least, since those stories feature the original Toyroom, intact.

Furthermore, it probably postdates all other appearances of the Toymaker. The story presents itself as his final, bittersweet "defeat" at the hands of the Doctor, and thus I am pretty sure the intention is that it takes place after whatever other Doctor vs. Toymaker narratives may have been produced in-between. I can't think of another case where, without specific in-story statements, adventure of a Doctor facing one of his classic enemies has been arbitrarily placed before confrontations of previous Doctors with that same enemy.

I really can't think of a good reason why this confusing chronology has emerged here — save possibly that the only flashback we get when the Doctor is explaining the Toymaker to Clara is of The Celestial Toymaker with Hartnell's Doctor, but that's very tenuous evidence at best, easily superseded by what I outline above. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  21:14, October 11, 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd like to question his physical appearance in Endgame (DWM comic story) and why it looks identical to his appearance in The Celestial Toymaker (TV story). We know this body belongs to Rallon and that particular body was dying and decaying in Divided Loyalties (novel) and the Toymaker took another form as of The Nightmare Fair (audio story). Endgame is the latest of those 4 stories. --DCLM ☎  19:16, February 15, 2020 (UTC)


 * "We know" is a very subjective statement. Divided Loyalties does say that the Toymaker's body in the original TV story was stolen from Rallon, but nothing in the TV story ever suggested the Toymaker's body was not his own. Endgame makes no reference to Divided Loyalties, and I would argue that it is more likely disregarding that book altogether than setting itself before it in the Toymaker's timeline, especially with the (obvious) lack of reference from the Toymaker in Divided Loyalties to having met a future incarnation of the Doctor in the time since he and the book's Doctor last met. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  19:22, February 15, 2020 (UTC)


 * To the first part... that is called evolution of the franchise. The First Doctor's era never named his race or planet. This was added in later on in the history. Evolution and expansion. Most likely the same case with Rallon's body. To the second part... you could easily say that even the Toymaker respected the timelines and was bound to not mentioning the future of the Doctor to the Doctor. --DCLM ☎  19:44, February 15, 2020 (UTC)


 * It's one thing when the stories which expand the lore afterwards are big high-profile notorious things; it's another thing when a Wilderness Years novel adds weird unexpected lore to the title character of one of the most famous Hartnell serials. It is overwhelmingly likely that a lot of people using the Toymaker today would do so directly on the basis of The Celestial Toymaker, with no knowledge of, or care for, what the Wilderness Years did or did not say the character.


 * I'd thus liken "the Toymaker is a body-snatcher who was possessing Rallon's body at the time" being ignored by another Toymaker story to "the Great Intelligence is Yog-Sothoth" being ignored by The Snowmen and the whole mess that caused. When two different EU stories say different things about a notorious character from televised Who, we should not necessarily assume they are trying to fit with one another. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  19:52, February 15, 2020 (UTC)


 * Then what if the Celestial Toymaker should pop up in a future story and he looks nothing like his appearance from the 60s? What do we say then? --DCLM ☎  20:06, February 15, 2020 (UTC)


 * What we always say: "according to one account". More precisely, "According to one account this was a stolen body which blah blah (PROSE: Divided Loyalties), and another account indeed showed the Toymaker later inhabiting a different body. (COMIC: Imaginary Example Story) However, according to several other accounts, the Doctor continued encountering a Toymaker with the same appearance as during the First Doctor's confrontation with him, with no signs of aging nor indeed any hints that the body was not his own. (COMIC: Endgame, Relative Dimensions, PROSE: More Example Stories, etc.)" --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  20:14, February 15, 2020 (UTC)

"The Toymaker"
I've been thinking about this for a while, but I really think this page should be at The Toymaker — albeit with redirects retained at Celestial Toymaker and The Celestial Toymaker. "Celestial Toymaker" is a fuller form of address — it's certainly a valid way to refer to him, but I notice that our page on Peter Butterworth & Co.'s character is at The Monk, nor The Meddling Monk.

And the two cases really seem to be anaologous, in that that vast majority of stories actually use "the Toymaker". It's used throughout the novelisation of The Celestial Toymaker; when the character was nam-edropped again on television in Can You Hear Me?, it was, as shown above, as "the Toymaker" only. The original episode's end credits, the script's cast list, and the period Radio Times announcement all use "the Toymaker".

In fact, within TV: The Celestial Toymaker, he is called the Celestial Toymaker in dialogue exactly twice: once by the First Doctor, once by Steven. In contrast, he is referenced as "the Toymaker" at least thirty times by various characters.

The page has sat long enough at its current location that I think this does merit discussion, but the case for a rename seems to me very strong. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 14:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I've thought about this before and agree with you. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  15:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Additionally, it seems that the original script rendered the First Doctor's line as "The celestial Toymaker" — that is, with "celestial" uncapitalised. It seems that by original authorial intent "the Celestial Toymaker" wasn't a name at all, even a secondary one: just a descriptor that could be applied to an individual whose name was simply "the Toymaker".


 * Of course, due to the usual telephone game, I'm sure valid sources have since used "the Celestial Toymaker" as a name, so it's not inaccurate exactly. But it makes the argument for a rename even stronger, I think, if the entire concept of treating "Celestial Toymaker" as a name started as a misunderstanding of the original story. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 15:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd be on board with the rename as well. 📯 📂 16:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Speaking of later sources, PROSE: Divided Loyalties also has some interesting data. The character is called "the Celestial Toymaker" a couple of times in narration, and once in dialogue — with capital letters — but we also find this exchange, from the mouth of the man(?) himself:

""I have a better fife now, Lord. Serving my new messiah, the Celestial Lord." The mandarin laughed with false modesty. "Oh Stefan, you flatter me." He looked at Sir Henry. "Most people call me the Toymaker. A sort of pan-dimensional Walt Disney, Charles Darrow and Hiroshi Yamauchi if you like." Sir Henry stared blankly. "Oh, well, never mind." The Toymaker pointed to the die. "Shall we begin, gentlemen?""

- Divided Loyalties


 * Interesting, methinks. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That is very strong evidence in terms of T:CHAR NAMES. Just to do our due diligence, though, we should probably check through the numbers and see the distribution of how often these two names are used, particularly in the stories in which he appears. Evidence so far suggests the Toymaker should be the way to go. 23:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * (SEO might be a secondary consideration here, as well. Using "Celestial Toymaker" does boost Tardis Wiki in search results, since this is a) possibly the most common name for him in the fandom at large, and b) certainly the most unique one, which wouldn't be confused with other properties named "The Toymaker".) 23:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * (I thought about SEO as well, but I don't think it's an issue in this case, since either way, our wiki will still have a page named "Celestial Toymaker" closely linked to this one. I fully support this rename proposal.) – n8 (☎) 14:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Alright, checking the prose releases (and the one audio with available scripts), here's the overall "score":
 * The Magic Mousetrap 6 "Celestial Toymaker" vs 25 "the Toymaker"
 * The Nightmare Fair 1 "Celestial Toymaker" vs 60 "the Toymaker"
 * Divided Loyalties 4 "Celestial Toymaker" vs 237 "the Toymaker"
 * Tales of Terror (total) 5 "Celestial Toymaker" vs 27 "the Toymaker"
 * Now We Are Six Hundred contains neither in narration, but the story itself is called "The Toymaker"
 * Now, on top of the evidence Scrooge pointed out above regarding the original credits, it's clear that the most often used name is simply "The Toymaker". That said, the current title has also been used throught the years, both in credits and within narratives, so it shall remain as a redirect and can be used accordingly.
 * Concerns of SEO have rightfully been put to be by NateBumber: searching for "Celestial Toymaker" will still point to us in virtue of the serial and its novelisation, so the character page can be moved to the most appropriate name. OncomingStorm12th ☎  17:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Toymakers
I added that, in the novelisation of The Celestial Toymaker, the Toymaker is said to be one of several toymakers, but Scrooge reverted it and said that it was a misreading of the text. I disagree.


 * THE DOCTOR: If he loses the game then his world vanishes. He doesn't. And he has the power to build a new one.
 * DODO: How?
 * THE DOCTOR: All toymakers are immortal. The urge to create toys that are ultimately destructive is unfortunately part of our universe. This Toymaker's lasted for thousands of years.

- Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  08:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Scrooge's reasoning was that "the Doctor is being metaphorical in those lines, suggesting there are many powerful psychopaths of the same type as the Toymaker in the universe, not that there are literally other Celestial Toymakers", but this doesn't jibe with the line "all toymakers are immortal". Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  08:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Notice the lowercase-T and, most importantly, the idea that "the urge (…) is part of our universe". I don't know if I phrased it quite right in my edit summary, but the point is that it does not seem to suggest that the Toymaker is a member of a coherent species or faction of toymakers, but rather (and this is, to my mind, a much more interesting conceit) that his particular madness, and the powers that accompany it, are some kind of inherent glitch of the universe that many unrelated individuals could and did stumble into. I felt your phrasing moreso implied the former. But this stuff should definitely be represented on the page, of course, I'm just not sure how best to phrase it. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 08:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know it's spelt with a lowercase T and I don't find the idea of multiple Toymakers an attractive one, but I disagree that it doesn't suggest that he is one of a species. I'm not suggesting that we state that, though. The line is vague so we should be vague about it and just say what's in the book, as opposed to this page which needs clearing up. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  08:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)