Talk:First Monk

Renaming the article
We should consider moving this page to either First Monk or Monk I.

The incarnation in question is explicitly stated to be the first incarnation by virtue of PROSE: The Mutation of Time. The only material which could be construed as contradictory is the idea that "the Monk" seen in his two televised appearances were the sixth incarnation of the Master. That being said, this would still be the first incarnation to go by the title. Since we don't call Christopher Eccleston's Doctor "the Tenth Doctor" because his predecessor didn't go by "the Doctor", we can still easily call this incarnation "the First Monk". That's ignoring the fact that the claim that the Monk was an incarnation of the Master was from an in-universe source (which was in-universe wiped of all information regarding the Master and can very easily be construed as unreliable.) Using "The Monk (The Time Meddler)" rather than "First Monk" or "Monk I" is rather silly when we are explicitly told this is the First Monk.

Personally, "First Monk" follows the precedent we currently have set (where Time Lords with titles use spelled out numbering and those that go by their true name use Roman numerals) and generally reads better, but I figured presenting both options wouldn't be a bad idea.NoNotTheMemes ☎  15:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. An account stating he’s the first incarnation paired with the fact that he’s very clearly the first “monk” even if he isn’t the first Mortimus is more than good enough for me. I think I’d lean more towards “First Monk” than “Monk I” to match the Doctors. SarahJaneFan ☎  18:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think I'll voice my support, preferably for Monk I, seeing as I already object to "First" being used on characters like the Doctor. The only possible issue I could see is that another story might one day and say that this guy isn't the first, but until then, this page should be housed at Monk I or somethin'. 📯 📂 01:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Monk I" is terrible — the clear standard is that "First", "Second", etc. is used for Time Lords with a "the" title (like the Rani), while "I", "II", etc. is used for Time Lords with a proper name (like Romana). Also, as your proposal not to use "First Doctor" and "Second Doctor" has been officially rejected, using it as some kind of pseudo-precedent would seem to go against the spirit of T:POINT and/or T:BOUND, albeit not falling directly into the domain of either.


 * I remain agnostic as to the wisdom of the move; it would be within policy, but I am not sure it is the best or the clearest option. However: if it is done, and it may yet be done, it will be to First Monk, certainly not to Monk I. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  04:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Scrooge about preferring "First Monk". "Monk I" just reminds me of Guard 1 and pages of the like. LauraBatham ☎  05:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I support this move, preferably to First Monk. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  05:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah @Scrooge MacDuck, the reason I mentioned my objections to "first" was honestly just becuase I prefer not naming characters with "first", "second", whatever - not because of some ill-concieved notion of "pseudo-precedent", you guys made it abundantly and extraordinarily clear that the Doctor's rename would not happen. However, seeing as "First Rani" exists, I wouldn't mind "First Monk" based on the precedent of that character. 📯 📂 12:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)