Talk:List of Doctor Who villains

Add ‘O’

I think ‘O’ should be added because he was technically The Master but this may be disputed as he appeared to assist The Doctor until the final minutes of the episode. What do you think? DoctorWhoEditor2 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

RE: The Monk and the War Chief

@197.86.143.140: Seriously, dude, you need to stop trying to advance your POV. Wikipedia is suppposed to be neutral in these matters, so we list every version of the characters. Also, you really need to understand the concept of citing sources. Primary sources (such as television dramas) can be used to describe their contents. To describe any connection between two or more primary sources, implied or otherwise, requires the citation of a secondary source (such as an article in a magazine). This is how tertiary sources like wikipedia operates. It's all about citing and summarising reliable sources. If a source doesn't say something explicitly, then wikipedia shouldn't be saying it explicitly either. DonQuixote (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

^^ irony. yes, irony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You admitted that you were advancing a POV when you wrote The "nonsense" is what Virgin Books and Big Finish Audios served up. Being neutral means that we don't care to comment on whether it's "nonsense"--we only care that they're published works. DonQuixote (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Explain this:

• From The War Games Episode 7:

WAR CHIEF: You may have changed your appearance, but I know who you are. DOCTOR: Oh, do you? WAR CHIEF: Your machine is a Tardis. You’re too familiar with its controls to be a stranger. DOCTOR: I had every right to leave. WAR CHIEF: Stealing a Tardis? Oh, I’m not criticising you. We are two of a kind.

• From the novelisation of The War Games(page 104):

The War Chief took the Doctor into his private office just off the war room and told his bodyguards to leave. “Now, ” he said “a traveller in a space time machine. There is only one person you can be”.

• From the novelisation of The Sea Devils(page 28):

The Master stroked his beard thoughtfully. Then, slowly, he shook his head. ‘I’m sorry, Doctor, it’s too much to ask.’ ‘But what use is your TARDIS to you while you’re in here?’ Jo asked: ‘It would be difficult for you to understand,’ said the Master, ‘but my TARDIS is my proudest possession.’ The Doctor laughed. ‘You don’t even own it! You stole it from the Time Lords!’ ‘As you stole yours!’ retorted the Master.

• Got that? The Doctor stole a TARDIS. The War Chief stole a TARDIS. The Master stole a TARDIS. When the War Chief encounters "a traveller in a space time machine" , he knows there's only one person it can possibly be. But there's more..

• From the novelisation of Colony In Space(pages 1):

‘The first TARDIS was very small,’ he said. ‘On the outside, yes,’ said the old Keeper. ‘Inside it could carry up to three persons, four with a squeeze. Later we built much bigger ones. There have been two stolen, you know.’ The young Time Lord didn’t know. ‘By our enemies?’ he asked. ‘No. By Time Lords. They both became bored with this place. It was too peaceful for them, not enough happening.’ The old Keeper smiled to himself, as though remembering with some glee all the fuss when two TARDISes were stolen. ‘One of them nowadays calls himself “the Doctor”. The other says he is “the Master”.

• From the novelisaion of The Three Doctors(page 93):

In his various incarnations, the Doctor had found himself up against many terrifying enemies. With the exception of the Master, this was the first time he had found himself opposed by a fellow Time Lord. And in comparison to Omega, the Master shrank almost to a petty criminal.

• Malcolm Hulke said of the character, and his relationship with the Doctor: "There was a peculiar relationship between the Master and the Doctor: one felt that the Master wouldn't really have liked to eliminate the Doctor...you see the Doctor was the only person like him at the time in the whole universe, a renegade Time Lord and in a funny sort of way they were partners in crime." (printed in Doctor Who Magazine 91, pp 17, 28).

• From the FASA Role Playing Game (page):

On Temporal Nexus Point Earth in 1066 AD (Earth time), the Doctor encountered the Master disguised as the Meddling Monk. At that time, the Master was trying to alter Earth's history by ensuring Harold's victory over William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings.

• There have to be cases where [1]. Seriously. The only reason to reject this is you are pushing your POV. Dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Got that? The Doctor stole a TARDIS. The War Chief stole a TARDIS. The Master stole a TARDIS. When the War Chief encounters "a traveller in a space time machine" , he knows there's only one person it can possibly be. But there's more.., etc.

Yes, that falls under original research. That's the point. Wikipedia can describe the contents of those novelisations, but it cannot connect two or more novelisations together or with the television programme unless a secondary source (a work of nonfiction) does it first. You (and any other fan) can do the above, but you and I aren't considered reliable sources in terms of wikipeida. Wikipedia needs to cite reliable sources (which don't include editors). That's why the articles don't explictly mentions all that stuff. You need to realise that wikipedia has limitations. Seriously, you really need to review all the things that I have mentioned multiple times, including WP:CITE and WP:TERTIARY.

On Temporal Nexus Point Earth in 1066 AD (Earth time), the Doctor encountered the Master disguised as the Meddling Monk. At that time, the Master was trying to alter Earth's history by ensuring Harold's victory over William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings.

The FASA game is already mentioned in the articles. It, being a game (a primary source), can only be used to describe itself. Again, wikipedia has limitations. It, in all acadaemic honesty, cannot mention more that that.

Seriously, wikipedia is only here to document all the different publications--it's not here to fill in the blanks or connect the dots. Again, wikipedia has limitations. DonQuixote (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, "ignore all rules" has more weight when it's more than one person waving it about. DonQuixote (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Like you, you mean? Whereas the article right now IS "connecting two or more novels..". The "monk" appears in the tv show. The novel "No Future" has a character called 'Mortimus'. The novel "Divided Loyalties" has a(nother) character called 'Mortimus'. All three of these characters have very different biographies. Yet, this article uses WP:OR AND WP:SYNTHESIS to link them all together. Using your "logic" the Doctor should be in this article as well, because in The Bells of St. John's someone says that "they call him the Mad Monk". And the time-travelling Monks from The Pyramid at the End of the World/The Lie of the Land as well.

But no, using actual sources is "original research". Yet, you stitching together several bits to form this ghastly Frankenstein's monster of an article is perfectly within Wikipedia's standards? Come on, that's absurd, and even you must see that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't read any of the novels--I've just assumed good faith on the editor who listed and summarised them. If you want to add a citation needed tag (which probably isn't the most effective thing to do) or bring it up at WT:WHO, go right ahead.

And as for the "actual sources", if you look at the things you have chosen to quote above, the actual sources don't actually say anything, rather they imply things. From WP:OR: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources (emphasis mine). Unless you can get a direct quote explictly stating what you want to cite them for, it's original research. DonQuixote (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you "assumed good faith" when it came to something you liked. But, someone posts something that upsets you, you're on it like a rabid pitbull. Are you now going to attack the vastly unsourced, WP:SYNTHESIS that is the mess of this article? Or are you just going to leave it? Why the different sets of rules? And, there we go "[you] haven't read any of the novels"! So, how can you make such outrageous claims, trying to come across as an expert?

Had you actually read what you have been so obsessive about, you would know that it requires at least both WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS to tie characters from these stories into one single character. Unlike, say, the FASA Manual which EXPLICITLY names the Master as the "Monk".

But, I bet you don't worry at all about the open sewer-like state of the "Monk" article. After all, it follows your WPPOV, and that's all that matters to you, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Dude, I've assumed good faith by asking you to cite reliable sources. I've assumed good faith by explaining what original research is and why that's unacceptable on wikipedia. I've also assumed good faith by pointing out that the FASA game is already mentioned. Also, the FASA game is a primary source, as I have pointed out several times. It can only be used to describe its contents. And, yeah, the only thing that matters to me is the proper citation of reliable sources whilst avoiding original research. Please go and do that. DonQuixote (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you at least try and answer the question that was actually asked?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk • contribs)

The answers to your questions are in WP:PRIMARY, etc. And adding more unsourced material to an article already tagged as needing improvement isn't an improvement. Also, I haven't made outrageous claims about the novels, so me not having read them is irrelevent. The only claims I've made are in line with WP:PRIMARY, etc. You can learn about them too by reading WP:PRIMARY, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

In summary, and it doesn't need any level of expertise to understand basics,

1. Claiming something not explictly stated in a source is original research
2. Citing a source involves directly quoting the source or paraphrasing what the source explictly states
3. A primary source can only be used to summarise its contents
4. A secondary source is a work of nonfiction that comments on a primary source and can be cited in lieu of original research

That's the basics. DonQuixote (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

And how is that relevant? Actually answer the question, or just drop it. Dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It's the bottom line to most of your questions--it's a summary of everything I've been saying this entire time.

Also, as I've responded before, adding more unacceptable material to an article that's already tagged as needing improvement isn't an improvement. And, to be even more specific, you're the one trying to foist your favourite version of the character as you did here :[2] and in this article. That is purely distrupitve behaviour. The Monk as a character appeared long before the FASA game, which is a primary source and thus has its own version of the character. Likewise for the War Chief. If the Mortiums editor did something like that, I would have responded in the same way. And, as I've said many times, wikipedia documents every version of the characters.

Seriously, you really need to understand the basics of what sources are and what original research is (see the above summary). DonQuixote (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

So, still no real answer? Just prepackaged slogans, and personal insults. You "one-size-fits-all" answers don't work here. Answer the question, or just drop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎197.86.143.140 (talk • contribs)

Dude, what specific question do you want answered? I've answered most of the ones that I can see above, and the answer to most of those are understanding the difference between primary sources and secondary sources and understanding what original research is. Please restate the specific question that you want answered. DonQuixote (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The one that's right there. Do you actually know how to have an actual discussion? Or have you been programmed to just quote irrelevant text? Do you work in telemarketing, by any chance? And stop calling people 'dude'.

Let's recap 1)You admit to not having read any of the relevant material.

2)You seem to think forcing ONE POV is somehow "neutral".

3)You refuse to reply to certain queries.

4)You are fixated on this one issue. Bt you have no problem with identical similar articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎197.86.143.140 (talk • contribs)

Please restate the question clearly so that I know which one I've missed. That would help move things along. And the text that I quote aren't irrelevant in that they show you that I'm not the one making the rules, mate. As to your other points,

1. Also, I haven't made outrageous claims about the novels, so me not having read them is irrelevent. The only claims I've made are in line with WP:PRIMARY, etc. You can learn about them too by reading WP:PRIMARY, etc.
2. And, as I've said many times, wikipedia documents every version of the characters.
3. Please restate the specific question that you want answered.
4. That's because it's the one issue that you're failing to understand, and it's also central to wikipedia, as Bondegezou pointed out below. And please bring up these other articles so that they can be discussed on the talk page.

DonQuixote (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Look above. Read up. it's all there. Ot, is this a ploy to try and derail the discussion, if 'discussion' it can be called. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It's obvious that I'm missing it. Please be helpful in restating it clearly so that I know what question you want answered. DonQuixote (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

IP editor, you're wrong. DonQuixote is right. Bondegezou (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"Right", how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎197.86.143.140 (talk • contribs)

In following and applying Wikipedia's guiding principles. Bondegezou (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

And yet you can't say HOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎197.86.143.140 (talk • contribs)

Numerous references to Wikipedia policy and guidance have been given above. I would also recommend you read WP:INUNIVERSE. Bondegezou (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop trying to push your POV and projecting it onto other people

Seriously, @197.86.143.126:, of all the things in the main article you chose those two things?--you're the one trying to push your POV by giving undue weight to two obscure works. STOP IT ALREADY. If you're not even going to try to cite an interview or a behind-the-scenes magazine article or a behind-the-scenes book or some other behind-the-scene work of nonfiction, YOU'RE the one trying to push your unsourced POV. DonQuixote (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean, come one, it's about as inappropriate as mentioning that his name is Mortimer. Seriously, you need to get the facts straight.

• A character that is only referred to as the Monk appeared in The Time Meddler and The Daleks' Master Plan.
• A character that is only referred to as the War Chief appeared in The War Games.
• A character known as the Master first appeared in The Auton Invasion and appeared in many more episodes since.

That's the only thing that can be said about the television programme because nothing else is said by the television programme. Whether or not they're the same character should be left open to interpretation because that's how the television programme leaves it and no interview or production documentation says otherwise. After which,

• The board game states that the characters are the same character
• The FASA game states that the Monk and the Master are the same character
• The novels state that the Monk and the Master are separate characters
• The audio plays have the Monk and the Master and the promotional materials for the audio plays don't combine the characters
• A couple of literary critics make the connection between the above characters.

That's all we can say about the characters. We can't push one version over another, because it's original research and thus POV pushing. DonQuixote (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

When were you born? Clearly long after the event. The novels do NOT state what you claim. In any case, how is adding to this webpage with reliable sources a bad thing? Only because it doesn't suit your personal POV! I am not "pushing a pov". That is you, you , and only you. I am adding reliably sourced information. If you remove reliably sourced information from a Wikipedia article, then you are a vandal. And that's what you're doing. Do it again, and you'll be reported for blanking articles for no reason other than your personal pov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.126 (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You're clearly advancing your POV. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Unless you can cite an interview or a behind-the-scenes book, like you have been asked multiple times to do, you can't just put your POV on a pedestal. And as for the novels, I have said before that I took what the other editor has added on good faith--but the point remains, you have shown bad faith by not citing interviews, etc. DO NOT TRY ADVANCING YOUR POV without citing interviews, etc. that support your POV. DonQuixote (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, you have shown that you're the one advancing a POV by trying to remove all traces of a character, like you did here [3], or by cherry picking sources (a primary source and an opinion piece, BTW) like you did in this article. Please stop doing that. As I have requested multiple times, please cite a secondary source (which I have explained as being an interview or a behind-the-scenes magazine article or a behind-the-scenes book or some other similar work of nonfiction) that actually supports your claims. And no, simply claiming that there are interviews or an abundance of material just won't cut it if you can't actually point to them. DonQuixote (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. Here's the simple facts. This article is about Doctor Who villains. I posted reliably sourced and cited material about those villains. You are blanking the reliably sourced and cited material that is 100% relevant to the article. Anything else is just you blowing hot air out your backside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.126 (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

But you're cherrypicking only two things. Why aren't you listing the other things? And why expand this one character and not any of the other characters with main articles. You're being acadaemically dishonest. DonQuixote (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, why don't you? Oh, look. You changed accounts to blank RELIABLY SOURCED material. AGAIN. And now the article is locked. After you blanked an entire section, for no other reason than your own opinions and personal prejudices. (PA removed Woody (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.126 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you asking why I don't go ahead and include the other things? It's because it'll be most of the main article. It's redundant. It'll be easier for the reader to just click the link to the main article and read the main article instead. DonQuixote (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur that there is no point adding a summary to this one character and not any of the others with main articles. 197.86.143.126, if you want to discuss this material, it should be at the Talk page for The Monk (Doctor Who) about possible additions to that article. I don't see why you are pushing it here, leaving aside the issues with what you want to add. Bondegezou (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion

Jack Frost (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (197.86.143.126)

....

I added relevant, reliably sourced, material to this article. DonQuixote blanked it. Then (s)he launched into personal attacks. I never added lengthy, rambling text. Merely a few succinct sentences, which were a) reliably sourced and b)help give additional information for those reading the article. DonQuixote blanked the reliably sourced information, because (s)he accused me of "pushing a pov". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.126 (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (DonQuixote)

There's no need to expand a single entry with a link to a main article, especially if that expansion isn't about the source material itself but a single adaptation and a single opinion piece that is only used to buttress a particular POV version of the character in question.

Third opinion by Jack Frost

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on List of Doctor Who villains and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Based on the information provided, a review of the relevant articles (including talkpages), and a review of the relevant sources, I am of the opinion: Given the existence of a standalone article for The Monk (and the norms for this article which are apparent to the reader), it appears more useful for the proposed content to be merged into that article rather than being included within this list. That is, the content should not be included on this page. Given it appears likely to be controversial, any changes should be proposed on that article’s talkpage for discussion prior to being made. Further sources would be helpful to support the assertions which are being made in the proposed content. I hope this is helpful. Jack Frost (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Page protection request

I have requested temporary semi-protection for this page at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection given inapproriate behaviour by an IP editor, e.g. [4]. Bondegezou (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article rather than block those involved for edit warring. Note I'm not taking sides and the article is protected in whatever form it is found in. Please discuss the issue. I can't personally see how adding content is vandalism though I don't know the background to the dispute but please see the guideline on disruptive editing. Woody (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2020

No complaints from me about a full protection. My particular concern, Woody, was when the IP editor violated WP:NPA by referring to another editor as an "emotional troll", as in the diff I gave previously. I cannot see any progress occurring within that context. Bondegezou (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: good point; I admit I hadn't spotted that edit summary. In any case earlier I warned the IP about personal attacks. Hopefully the discussion on this page can go back to the content not contributors and a consensus can be found about the article going forward. Woody (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The war Chief

OK what does the BBC say, not some bloke who wrote a book, a not a game, the BBC?Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

"The Editor (Doctor Who)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Editor (Doctor Who). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 31#The Editor (Doctor Who) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)