Talk:The Monk (Doctor Who)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cont

The novelisation establishes he has a past history with the Doctor before The Time Meddler

Again, the character is NOT universally called "the Monk". DonQuixote is sneakily removing valid information, to give a distorted view of what those books etc. really say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.23 (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You need to settle down, mate. Seriously, those things are already mentioned in the prose. There's no need to clutter up the list. Keeping the list as a simple list of titles is simplest.

And the novelisation is vague on that, but I'll give you that one. But it seems like scraping the bottom of the barrel on that one. DonQuixote (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Vague? Look, Blippi, you need to understand that YOU are the one pushing YOUR POV. Whether you like it or not, that information is real, and sourced. You trying to delete material because it doesn't fit with your headcanon is just vandalism. Just because you like "running gags" in Big Finish. FASA is 100% real and valid. 4-Dimensional Vistas is 100% real and valid etc. "But, oh, Big Finish says that he's called the Monk!" That's just one position. and even then that's "According to Big Finish..." Notice how, eg. FASA says that "FASA states...", whereas Big Finish is treated as Gospel. Why do the comics and books get a single line or so, whereas the Big Finish stuff each gets its own novella? Perhaps it's time to prune... 197.83.246.23 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Big Finish isn't treated as gospel. You're just mad because we're not treating the FASA game as gospel. Neither one of them should be treated as gospel. Both of them are documented as publications. DonQuixote (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeas, but you clearly want to show favouritism to one over the other. That is easily apparent.

No, that's just you, mate. I treat the FASA game equally with the Big Finish productions. Based on the rantings about your dislike for the audio plays and the novels and such, it's clearly you that wants to lift the FASA game above all else. Sorry that treating things equally with neutrality is being "biased" in your eyes. DonQuixote (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Mate? Are you also an Aussie? Sling a wallaby on the barbie, sheila. Nyuk nyuk. And, no, you're definitely NOT "treating things equally". You are clearly favouring the Briggsian interpretation. That Big Finish stuff is longer than the rest of the article combined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.23 (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, in what way am I favouring the Briggsian interpretation? And, again, you can trim anything extraneous from the Big Finish stuff, but there's been 12 appearances so it might be a little difficult. DonQuixote (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You insist that the character has always been called "the Monk". However, that name had been dropped decades ago, and only reappeared as the character name in more recent times. Gain, whether he was declared to be the same character as the Master or not, nothing called him "the Monk" as the character name until people like you forced a POV. And your attempts to delete the relevant information from the list of appearances. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope, never insisted that the character has always been called "the Monk".

When speaking about a character that has no name in the lede of the encyclopaedia article, "the Monk" is appropriate since it indicates that we're writing about a character that appears such-and-such media. It's not naming him "The Monk", it's just referring to "the character that appears in such-and-such that has no other simple term to describe him". See Man with No Name, where it's a description but it's capitalised per MOS when referring to the character.

In fact, what you're misremembering is just me providing a single counterpoint to your statement But he's not called "the Monk" in any of those., to which I replied He's called "the Monk" in the radio plays, and Big Finish literally said that it's the same character. That's not me favouring Big Finish, that's just using Big Finish as an example.

And, as I keep mentioning, you haven't cited a work of behind-the-scenes nonfiction where the Monk was declared to be the same character as the Master. Until you do that, all we can say is "in the FASA game the Monk (or, rather, the character that appeared in The Time Meddler) was declared to be the same character as the Master" or "in the board game...etc."--similar to how we only state "in the novels he's also called Mortimus", etc. Again, he's not "called the Monk", we just write "the Monk" rather than using the long "the character that appeared in The Time Meddler" every single time that he's mentioned. And that goes for the list too. The list is for "the character that appeared in The Time Meddler", and any names used in that appearance is extraneous to the list and can be read in the prose section. DonQuixote (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's what you're pushing for, boyo.

if we refer to the television serials, then the character is credited as "the monk". You want to capitalise that, ok. You want to claim that the character's proper name/title is, and always has been, "the Monk". No. You want to falsely claim that the character is identified as "the Monk"(proper name/title) in multiple sources, both real-world and in-narrative. Absolutely not.

Yes, he's called "the Monk" in Big Finish. But he's NOT called that in the novels, comics, etc. not in the FASA Books, not in the board game. And, being 100% truthful, he's NOT called "the Monk"(capitalised) in the original television serials either. It is ONLY Big Finish who have taken this approach. In the FASA Books(plus the non-FASA board game) he is unambiguously called "the Master". Then, Doctor Who Magazine took the stance that he's NOT "the Master", but his proper name/title is "The Time Meddler". Then, the novels took the official stance that he's not the Master, but his proper name/title is "Mortimus". And this was uniform across the Virgin and BBC Books. And, as shown, in the 60's he's "the monk" lower case, descriptive, indicating that it is not, and never was, his actual name. The only real problem, besides you, is "Is he the Master or not"? Even if we were to agree that he's NOT that Master(which ain't gonna happen as there are both real world and in-narrative materials saying that he IS), that still wouldn't make him "the Monk". Yes, he was credited as 'the monk' in his original two tv appearances. You want to capitalise that, whatever. But please don't outright lie and say that, because Big Finish now have some one-dimensional plot device in their fringe audios called "the Monk", that every appearance he has ever made was as "the Monk". because that's a blatant lie. In those novels, those short stories, those comics, those INFORMATION section that ACCOMPANIED the games, in the INFORMATION section that ACCOMPANIED the board game, he was NEVER called "the Monk". And he wasn't even "the Monk" on television. There he was "the monk". Get it? Got it?197.83.246.23 (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok...it's quite apparent that you have a reading comprehension problem...so I'm done trying to explain things to you (again). Please try to stay within the guidelines of writing a tertiary source. DonQuixote (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to be insulting. But then that's the common response for someone who knows they're losing a discussion, isn't it? Again, by NOT making clear what the character was called, it is being misleading. Whether or not the same information is contained elsewhere in this ridiculously overlong article is not the point. Because not everyone is going to read right through. In fact, it is entirely possible, and indeed likely, that someone may JUST want to see the "list of appearances". So, that information in that section is far MORE relevant than the inflated "Big Finish recap" section. Do YOU understand that? Or do YOU lack the comprehension? Maybe you should try and find a kiddies wiki where you can edit. Or go poke some jello with a stick or something. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to be insulting. But then that's the common response for someone who knows they're losing a discussion, isn't it?

[1][2][3][4] Four false personal attacks, all insults of vandalism. Pot, kettle, black. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope. That's not a personal attack. Try and learn the difference. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether it's a personal attack is defined by the editor is was directed to, not the editor it was from. None of those edits were vandalism. Maybe you should read our policies. Do you understand that? Or do you lack the comprehension? -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

^ this clearly IS a personal attack. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It's very interesting that three users not only believe the exact same nonsense, push the exact same POV/OR ::::::::::garbage, but also use the exact same phrases. Two are known to be from Australia, while the third has repeatedly used ::::::::::"mate".

And all two of them "just suddenly" appeared to parrot what the third was saying, at the exact same time as the third ::::::::::was clearly losing a discussion on key issues about this article. I wonder if "they" lack the comprehension for that? 197.83.246.23 (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Huh. So you admit to personal attacks. It's almost like nobody agrees with you, so you feel a need to make assumptions to make yourself feel better. Get the hint, and stop beating a dead horse, you're fighting a losing battle. Nothing's changing here for you. Byebye. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I admitted nothing of the sort. Clearly you are the one lacking comprehension. Give it up. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I used your own quote. Nothing's changing, consensus is against you. Happy editing! -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What "consensus"? You have no clue what you're even speaking about, little boy. Why not stick to something more age-appropriate? 197.83.246.23 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Point to me, where's the editorial support for your changes? Anyone agreeing with you? No? Consensus against you. Nothing's changing. And stop editing other's posts. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no "consensus". It's just you. But even if this imaginary "consensus" if yours happened to be true, if wouldn't matter a scrap. Because Wikipedia is about WP:RS, not about ±what the Potato Head Kids all agree to be true. Go back to your treehouse until you comprehend that. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

ps. You haven't even defined what specifically you object to in bullet points. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Three editors against one. And these "sock" accusations are getting old; if you really think we're all one account, go open up a sock investigation, we'll wait. Guarantee nothing comes of it. And WP:CONSENSUS is actually policy, so... Nothing's changing. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

No. If you an't even say what it is that you're objecting to, other than throwing a temper tantrum for its own sake, then you have nothing to add. But then you never did have anything to add, did you, scooter? Seriously, at least TRY and say something like "This sentence is wrong because.." or "The article needs to state that...". But you can't even do that. Or you won't do that. or perhaps both. You are justa rguing for its own sake. So whatever you have to sya is utterly irrelevant, and cna be safely ignored. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)