Talk:Time Lord/Archive 1

Archive 1

Out, damned Masterplan!

I think that giving the Cartmel Masterplan the prominence it has is an incredibly bad idea. It may be labelled as containing possibly non-canon material, but it mixes up the actual TV series and other sources in such a way that it is impossible for anyone not already versed in the differences to separate the two. A non-fan coming here is going to want to know what was on the show, not what's in some book, and he's not going to be able to figure out what was. This is only made worse by the fact that the section is labelled as "history within the show" (spinoffs aren't a show) and that the Wikiproject says we should be producing "a reference that has value as an authority on material within the television series".

I am aware that some fans like it (I'm not one of them), but it is *not* part of the series in the same way that things actually seen on-screen are, and merely mentioning it as possibly non-canon while devoting so much space to it is still putting far too much emphasis on a story that vastly rewrites what a viewer familiar with only the series would know.

(And it'll get riduclous over the next few seasons each time the show says something that contradicts it and another disclaimer has to be added, as is already done for the Time War.)

At *most*, there should be a section on the history of the Time Lords that gives only information from the show itself, and another section at the bottom which begins "In spinoff media, more detailed accounts have been given of the Time Lords' history. One such account is...."

I would do this myself, but I'm not familiar with all the details of the spinoffs, and may do a poor job at it.

Incidentally, is there an article anywhere which collects all the references to Time Lord children? Ken Arromdee 21:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

No, there isn't, but as far as I know there hasn't really been that many references to Time Lord children anyway. I don't disagree about the Masterplan, but as you said it'll take some doing to tease it out. I'll see what I can do. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Terminology: Tardis

As I recall it, Susan coined the term "Tardis", and its derivation. The Time Lords, I believe, call them Time Capsules, of which the Doctor's was either a TT40, or a Mark 4 (or both -- TT40.m4) and the Master's was (supposedly) a Mark 5.
The Doctor seemed to use the term, and others may have picked it up from him, but I am not sure how Gallifrey-canonical that would be. Certainly the Dalek variant was more usually a Time Corridor, although they did use a "vessel" during the Chase. --Simon Cursitor 14:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Susan's claimed coining of the term is discussed in TARDIS. The Doctor's TARDIS was described as a TT Mark 40 during Tom Baker's era. Prior to that it was not given a designation (neither was the Master's - although its components were, like the dematerialisation circuit being of a more advanced model than the Doctor's). The Meddling Monk's TARDIS was called a Mark IV. --khaosworks 14:52, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Susan only coined the English word for it? When other Gallifreyans call it that, we're just hearing the usual translation into English. Ken Arromdee 21:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Lord President

How does the Lord President come into power? I seem to recall that the President appoints their own successor, but I can't recall where I got that from, unfortunately (The Deadly Assassin?). On a side note, is there a term for that type of government? I thought it was autocracy (i.e.- it builds itself) but it seems that I'm mistaken. Either way, it's not in the article, and probably should be. :)--Sean Jelly Baby? 05:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Constitutionally, there's an election among the Time Lords (which, you'll remember, are an elite, so no rank and file Gallifreyans need apply) — that's how the Doctor prevents his execution in The Deadly Assassin, by claiming the right to stand for election as the new President. However, Goth seems to think that he is the natural successor (and says, as part of his motives, that he knew the former President would have never named him to succeeded him), so it would also appear that the Presidential elections are seldom contested, and that the election is a formality once the new President is nominated by the previous one. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks. --Sean Jelly Baby? 20:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Time Lord name

Is it accurate to say in the opening paragraph that the Time Lords are so named because of their technology? Some episodes have suggested that the Time Lords have a more organic relationship to time. The article already mentions the "time sense" occasionally manifested by Time Lords in stories such as City of Death and The End of the World. It's speculation whether this ability is inborn or added somehow (via the Rassilon imprimatur?) upon attaining Time Lord "rank", but I still wonder if there's some way to include the possibility that a Time Lord is connected to Time in some more fundamental way than just owning a TARDIS. Or have I just been reading too much Lawrence Miles? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to relook at The Three Doctors to check, but I have this vague recollection that they date their calling themselves Time Lords from when Omega's experiments gave them mastery over time, so it was a technological development. I know Mad Larry (who, along with Lance Parkin, I count as major influences on my own conception of the Doctor Who universe and my own fanfic) makes the argument about Time Lords having deeper connections to time, but this isn't really what's seen in the television series as a basis for calling them Time Lords - my own take is that they gained these abilities as a result of their interaction with time. In City of Death, I believe the Doctor says that this sensitivity is because of them crossing the time fields so often. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds accurate and reasonable to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

heres a good place to mention my edits, not least because they've eaten the formatting a little bit accident......anyone want to fix it? anyhoo....Gallifreyans are naturally linked to time...the Pythias time sensitivity allowiing their reading of the future, as with the Sisterhood of Karn, and most importantly, Red-Heads, like Shonzii in Times crucible....gallifreyan telepathy leading to time sensitivity....although the only become Time Lords after the rise of Rassilon, though this is a title to do with their 'mastery of time' made possible through their advanced method of time travel. It was in the Pythias time that time-travel began, but it was Omegas experiments that made it safe and relatively easy. And you can never read too much Larry Miles, hes a brilliant, if controversial writer.Jaime9526 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Jaime9526

The Capitol

where was the capitol referred to as gallifrey? as well as the planet that is. and im fuzzy about citadel as well.Jaime9526 00:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)jaime9526

The Capitol is called the Capitol of Gallifrey, and the Capitol is in the Citadel (called in various television stories, The Invasion of Time, Arc of Infinity). One logical extension of this would be that the Citadel is also called Gallifrey, although I can see there's a bit of a gap. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Regeneration energy

Although it's somewhat ambiguous, I believe that the energy depicted in "The Christmas Invasion" is due to the manner of the Doctor's regeneration -- i.e., absorbing the energy of the time vortex -- and not to regeneration in general. Discussion? !melquiades 06:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well it did seem more yellow that usual, but then the TARDIS interior is lit that exact same shade of yellow, so it could just be the lighting, short answer: there's no such thing as regeneration energy, so the best answer i could give you would be total speculation--71.247.243.152 19:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

GA notes

As standard of various Doctor Who articles, this article is well written and neutral. Problem: references. Rather than showing which episode something occured in in brackets, use it as an in-line citation and also write things like airdate and writers/directors. I'll keep you posted on more suggestions. Wiki-newbie 13:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Failed due to lack of progress. WikiNew 16:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

I think this article comes close to meeting the Good Article criteria. However, some of the images are missing a fair use rationale; that needs to be addressed before it can be promoted to GA. In addition, if the information is available, I think it would be helpful to go into more detail regarding the real-life development and history of the "Time Lord" concept for the series.

Also, while it's very well referenced, it relies mostly on primary sources. I don't see any claims exceptional enough to require more, so this wouldn't stand in the way of its becoming a GA; however, finding some outside sources to cite would make this a stronger article. If you're planning on Featured Article candidacy, I'd recommend starting there; FA is more strict than GA in this regard. Thanks for your work on the article so far. Shimeru 23:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added fair-use rationales to the images. Smomo 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, looks good, then. I'm passing the article; in preparation for FA, I'd recommend increasing the amount of out-of-universe detail and finding more secondary sources to support the material, as I mentioned previously. I also always recommend a copyediting pass prior to a FA candidacy, although the writing here is pretty uniformly good. Shimeru 19:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Please see discussion of the proposed merge at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who. Tim! 10:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Sentence

There is a sentence in the first introduction paragraph before the overview that doesn't appear in the edit page. It states that Daleks are spelt 'darleks' and does not use capital letters. If someone could please try to rectify this that would be great, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.151.234.148 (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

The Fourth Doctor regenerates into the Fifth Doctor (from Castrovalva,[31] 1982).

This statement is also wrong. His third regeneration occurs at the end of Logopolis. I'm surprised no one has noticed this. --John R. Sellers 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I had forgotten about the scene before the opening sequence of Castrovalva. I've just confirmed this at YouTube. However, that scene was first used at the end of Logopolis. --John R. Sellers 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"A TARDIS's interior spaces exist in a different dimension from its exterior"

I know Doctor Who is generally quite contradictory, surely since in Rise of the Cybermen/Age of Steel it is mentioned that the TARDIS cannot travel to other dimensions, this can't be completely accurate. And I'm sure there is other material in the series which contradicts this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.195.210.11 (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

It is well established continuity that the TARDIS's interior exists in a different dimension, and the TARDIS has travelled to other dimensions (after all, time itself is a dimension). The issue in RotC/AoS is travelling to a parallel universe. Of course, it can happen (because we see in this episode it did) but that was by accident. And, as the Doctor pointed out in the episode, the travel between them used to be easy when the Time Lords were around. I think the issue is not one of contradiction, but that 'dimension' is a rather general word used to refer to a number of specific events/states. DW has a few (!) continuity problems, but generally has consistent logic. Hope this helps. Gwinva 09:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Tibetan Time Lords

"Racially, all the Time Lords in the television series so far have been portrayed by white adults"

True, but I do believe, as embarassed as it makes me to bring the yellowface to the surface, that we are meant to suspend disbelief and buy that Kan'Po from Planet Of The Spiders is in fact Tibetan. Do you think this point should be added to this sentence, or elsewhere within the Doctor Who articles?

Courtesy of Gavla 18:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Time Lord physical requirements: oxygen

I am not sure, which is why this is going here, not straight into the article. Do Time Lords not need oxygen? I the recent episode Smith and Jones, the oxygen runs out, and all the humans go into a kind of temporary death, whilst the Doctor carries Martha to the window. Cheesypot 22:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Lack of oxygen was a problem to Five at one point in The Caves of Androzani, but he claimed to be able to store enough for a few minutes. --77.99.30.226 22:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why time lords look human...

It says that there is no mention to why most species are humanoid, but in the episode mentioned with the giant fan the tree lady tells the 9th doctor (earth is about to blow up) that most races spawned from earth "It is said that humans have touched every planet". And a flat lady tells them that she is the last remaining human because all other have "mingled"... 75.89.39.42 19:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Well, in the latest episode, the Doctor says that humans always revert to the Humanoid shape, no matter what, so obviously it seems to be a good evolutionary shape. -Grim- 23:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

170 beats per minute.

I was just wondering where it was stated that time lords' hearts beat 170 times per minute? I swear this page stated that it was 10 beats per minute the last time I checked it. Also, 170 seems alot considering they have 2, we only have 1 and that beats 60-70 times per minute. -Krall I was wondering where that particular idea came from as well, as I haven't read anything about it, and I read A LOT. Knowing me, I've probably not read the right books, and I'm too young to have seen the pre-2005 episodes- I'm only 16.-Grim- 23:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Home Planet - Extinction

The Doctor (Christopher Eccleston) states to Rose in "The End of the World" that he is the last of his kind and that his planet and people were wiped out in a war that they lost. How does that tie into the article as written? -- Bill 05:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Follow the link to Time War (Doctor Who). DonQuixote 05:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

(The Don beat me to the punch, but this is what I had written:) It's covered briefly at Time Lord#The Time War and Time War (Doctor Who). (A warning: if you're watching the series on the Sci-Fi Channel, and want to avoid spoilers for the rest of the season, you may not wish to follow these links. More information about the fate of the Doctor's homeworld is revealed later on in the series.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that this article be renamed along the lines of "Time Lord (1963-1996)", and that a new article be written, "Time Lord (2005)". Even if the Time Lords do eventually reappear in the RTD version of DW, the chances of them being truly related to the old Time Lords--especially as they eventually appeared in the Virgin line--is just about nil. It is far, far too confusing to try to weave the two shows' visions of the Doctor's people together, especially when RTD's vision is principally about making them different from their predecessors. If I were a new fan, coming to wikipedia for further definition, I would be incredibly confused by this article. Far better to have a simple, distinct article on the new series pointing them back to this article for further reading, than to try to make this article include RTD's vision.CzechOut 02:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I honestly see no reason for a fork. The Time Lords existed, and they are no more; it's as simple as that, but their previous history isn't wiped away. If and only if a complete new breed of Time Lord emerges that is unrelated to the original Gallifreyan should there be a need for anything more. RTD has said absolutely nothing about what the Time Lords were/are that is inconsistent with the old.

--khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing I've never understood, is that the Doctor seems to feel lonely, but he cannot travel to meet other Time Lords, as they are no more, even though they could travel through time. Personally, it makes no sense to me. Couldn't the Doctor, in theory, meet another Gallifreian who travelled ahead past the Time War? Or could he not travel back to before the time war, and meet one of them there? It's not like it'd be impossible, as they CAN travel to ANY point in time... could someone explain this please? -Grim- 22:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The most likely answer seems to be Timey-Wimey stuff that has resulted in the Time Lords/Gallifrey never having existed any more. They somehow, impossibly, endure in memory and achievements, but without being definably located anywhere in history. It's been implied that time itself was a weapon of the Time War, which would result in paradoxes all over the place. I've also seen it said that the Doctor can only ever visit Gallifrey's relative present, though this wouldn't explain the absence of pre-War Time Lords. Anyway, all speculation, basically, as the series has yet to address it, if it ever will. --77.99.30.226 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hearts

This one has been bugging me for ages. The doctor's two hearts - when were they first mentioned? I know for a fact that they were mentioned in Spearhead from Space and have been a fairly consistent part of the program since then. I'm also fairly certain that Hartnell's doctor was shown on more than one occasion to have a single heart. The fan lore that Time Lords grow their second heart when they first regenerate is already stated in the main article, so I presume that means that Troughton's doctor must have talked about having two hearts on at least one occasion, but when? I'm sure there must be a custodian of the Who continuity out there who knows the answer to this one? --86.27.60.124 17:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The first time two hearts are mentioned is in Spearhead from Space, not before. The fan lore retcons the Second Doctor as having two hearts, but there's nothing in his era to establish it either way. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

so the best answer anyone knows is "timey-wimey stuff". oh well, Thanks, it's not to important. I'm still confused though. -Grim- 03:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Costumes

The black and white Academy uniform/robe worn by the eight year old Master is directly based on the earliest depiction of Time Lords in the episode The War Games. There is another image of them here. Then there was a second uniform design as seen here from The Three Doctors which seems to have evolved into the current version. --Basique 22:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

An obvious question...

What was the first episode to refer to the Time Lords by that name? --Isaac R 02:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The War Games. It's in the Infobox. --OZOO (vote saxon) 08:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for pointing out something I overlooked. But I think it's painfully fanboyish that the article carefully reconstructs the imaginary history of the Time Lords, but doesn't have anything to say about how the idea evolved from the writers' POV. --Isaac R 16:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Chapters and Fields

What happened to the information about the various Chapters of the Academy, and why is there a need for a clunky (and chunky) quote in the middle ofthe article from a non-television source explaining morphogenetic fields when there's a perfectly serviceable link to an actual Wikipedia entry about morphogenetic fields? -khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No comment being given, I'm removing the quote and restoring the paragraph on the Chapters. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Image

The current image is this one: Image:Gallifrey_The_Sound_of_Drums.jpg However, it doesn't show an image of Time Lords so well as an image of Gallifrey, which happens to have a Time Lord standing on it. Could a close-up be placed there? It doesn't have to be the Doctor, it could be the Master (or even Romana!) or a combination of several. Thoughts? =David^(talk)_(contribs) 04:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the image, it's not appropriate for the info box of a fictional race. However, given that the article has many images, I don't see there's a rush to put in another one. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with shifting Image:Prydonian.jpg? It headed the article before. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Drax

The link for Drax is phuckt. There is no mention of Drax on the page linked to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.169.74 (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Time Lord ethnicities? (from Talk:Master)

copied from Talk:Master

DWM comic Master

Two points that we might want to add to the paragraph about the version of the Master seen in The Glorious Dead in DWM:

1. The new Master was seen in the background of a previous strip (although I can't remember which one) before his identity was revealed. He was in the guise of a street preacher prophesying doom.
2. This version of the Master was depicted as black-skinned. No Time Lord in the TV series was ever played by a black actor, although this almost certainly has more to do with BBC casting practices between 1965 and 1986 (the first and last castings of characters from the Doctor's planet) than with an intrisic racial quality of Gallifreyans.

I can't add the first because my DWM back issues are in storage right now, and I can't check them to see the comic strip Master's first appearance. I'm unsure about the best way to word the second in NPOV: I think it's noteworthy (for example, as a departure from the Eurocentric casting of the original TV series), but I think that going into too much detail would be off-topic for this article. Opinions? —Josiah Rowe 04:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[1] - apparently there was a black time lord in one of Cornell's novels. Interestingly Rassilon is portrayed by Don Warrington in some of the Big Finish audios. Tim! (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I knew about Warrington's Rassilon, but had forgotten about the Cornell contribution. Of course, there's no reason whatsoever why a Time Lord shouldn't be black. But back to this article: anyone have a succinct way of mentioning this in the "Glorious Dead" paragraph, without getting too derailed? —Josiah Rowe 19:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that touching on it briefly (but obviously, keep the focus on the Master) and just saying "although no Black Time Lords were ever seen in the original series...." Okay, I don't know where to go from there, but it's a start. Also, the TVM Master was the first Time Lord to speak with an American accent, so evidently he is pretty cool with diversity. As long as they obey him, one supposes :) Sean 19:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Right, I've given it a shot, and probably erred on the side of too much information. Improvements are welcome. (By the way, I'm never quite sure when to write "black" and when to write "Black" — some people are very particular that it's got to be capitalized whenever you're talking about people, others say that the capitalization is a political relic from the 1970s. The Wikipedia article Black (people) is inconsistent.) —Josiah Rowe 21:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually that's really good. It's got just enough info to keep it relevant. Perhaps we should talk about this over at Talk: Time Lord ? Sean 21:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I've put in the DWM comic book references - and I prefer "black", myself, for completely arbitrary reasons (Black isn't a "race"). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Nicely done, khaosworks. —Josiah Rowe 01:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I know this information is no longer in the article, but I disagree with this general assessment of the DWM Master. In the first place, if he's black, it's the worst depiction of a black man ever drawn. He's shown to be balding with straight white hair more typical of Caucasians. [2]. In the second, this, like Ainley, is another "borrowed body" Master, so it has little bearing on typical physiognomy of Time Lords. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 06:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

--- I don't know whether the fact that all the Time Lords shown in the series were played by white (and, excepting Eric Roberts and George Pravda's Castellan, British) actors is noteworthy or not. If it is, we could probably put something under "Physical characteristics" — but what? —Josiah Rowe 21:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Not all Galefreyans are Time Lords!

I have noted several times that not all of those of the doctors species are Time Lords, and people continue to alter it. Please watch the series, there are several points in which it is made very clear that one from his home planet may "become" a Time Lord, through schooling. Thus since my uncle is a Doctor, and we are of the same species, does that make me a Doctor? Well no... Time Lords are the only ones qualified to leave the planet, so when you see one from that planet, and you are not on that planet, you can be almost 100% sure they are Time Lords, but that does not make them a species. Please let me know of you need help on this. Todd_Musheno@yahoo.com For references, among others, see episodes 144 to 147 - The Trial of a Time Lord circa 1986. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.171.40.81 (talk • contribs) 17:14, February 24, 2007 (UTC)

You're right that not all Gallifreyans appear to be Time Lords, but the mechanism by which Gallifreyans become Time Lords has never been made completely clear. References to the Time Lord Academy and colleges imply that becoming a Time Lord is associated with education, but that's not explicit. Nor has it been made clear that non-Time Lords can't leave the planet — indeed, the character of Drax (The Armageddon Factor), who was at the Academy with the Doctor but failed Temporal Theory, may or may not be a Time Lord but he's clearly off-planet.

That said, you're right that we should avoid referring to Time Lords as a "species" or "race". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I proposed above, also pointing out that in the media, such as the audios and books, that there have been Time Lords who are non-Gallifreyans, it makes it harder to refer to the them as a race if they're not even always represented as being of one species.Number36 00:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

...except that the Doctor keeps referring to himself as "the last of the time lords", meaning "the last Gallifreian", so it seems that they may be the same thing, according to him. -Grim- 22:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

...Except that there's nothing inherent in 'the last of the Time Lords' that indicates it means anything other than 'the last of the Time Lords', the last of the Mohicans wasn't after all the last Human, but contra wise if he had've been the last Human he would still have been the last of the Mohicans.Number36 02:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never understood this claim. What is it about Deadly Assassin and Invasion of Time that makes people think that all Gallifreyans aren't Time Lords? I think the article would benefit of some very specific quotations from the script and critical sources to clear this up. The most I've ever come away with from these two Fourth Doctor serials is that the chapters represent socio-political strata in Time Lord society, not that you have to be part of one of these houses to be a Time Lord. Indeed the group living outside the Citadel in Invasion are specifically said to be TIme Lords, not mere Gallifreyans. This rather firmly attests that Time Lords are not just "the ones in the high collars", nor do they all belong to one of the "Chapters". It's rather like Harry Potter. You can be a witch and not a student at Hogwarts. LIkewise you can be a Time Lord and not a member of a Chapter. In both these serials we're simply seeing the Time Lords in the middle of political crises, so you get a disproportionate view of the electoral college, as it were.

I note with pleasure that the article no longer subscribes to Josiah Rowe's notion, above, that we should avoid referring to Time Lords as a "species" or "race". Given that there are specific mentions of "Time Lord physiology" throughout the series, Time Lords are at least a race (in the sense of species). But the new series has been extremely helpful in positively asserting that the Time Lords are indeed a race. Mr. Finch positively identifies the Doctor as "a Time Lord" (not Gallifreyan) and says in School Reunion, "And what of the Time Lords? I always thought of you as such a pompous race." Likewise, Jabe in "The End of the World" is clearly looking for identification of the Doctor's species when her little "Blackberry" tells her the Doctor is a Time Lord. There really can be no doubt that the Time Lords are a race, and I hope the article doesn't revert to an earlier state where that was in doubt.

As for the possibility that there are multiple species on Gallifrey, well, I think the article needs to give us a lot more than just "it is heavily implied". Where in Invasion or Assassin or Trial is it implied? How is it implied? Does it just come down to the fact that some of the Time Lord characters in Assassin die without regenerating? Cause if so, the threat of a non-regenerative death has been cited as a possibility at least as far back as Castrovalva, confirmed as possible in The Caves of Androzani, and was definitively shown as an option in "Last of the Time Lords". The Master clearly had the knowledge to suspend the Doctor's regenerative process in "Last", and so logically could have employed it in Assassin. Thus, the fact that "Gallifreyans" actually died in Assassin doesn't mean they weren't Time Lords. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 09:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Similarities

Does anybody besides me see similarities between the Time Lords and the Valar of J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium? Think about it, Gallifrey is like Valinor, the Doctor is like Manwe and the Master) is like Morgoth. --86.133.203.166 (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I added links to the other articles you mentioned so other people would know what you were talking about, hope you don't mind. I think there are similarities but to say so on Wikipedia probably would be allowed on the grounds of original research. Sorry. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I supposed you're right. --92.3.42.125 (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That rifty thing

The article seems to state that it is only suggested that staring into the rift in space caused the Master, as a young entity, to go mad. I thought it was absolute canon, not to mention being confirmed by the Master himself. Lots42 (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Prydonian.jpg nominated for deletion

In case anyone's interested. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 20:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of regenerations

I believe that Time Lords are limited to 12 regenerations. The plot of "The Keeper of Trakken" revolves around the Master having used up his regenerations, and in "Shada," Prof. Chronotis exceeds his limit as well.

This isn't mentioned in the article. Am I misremembering? !melquiades 06:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Er... the 12-regeneration limit and the Master's exceeding of it are both mentioned in the article, under "Physical characteristics". Chronotis isn't mentioned, but he's a fairly minor character really. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see it now -- I was thrown by the section above about Time Lords being able to "live forever, barring accidents." But presumably that refers to what happens if no regeneration is ever necessary. !melquiades 16:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the way it's generally viewed, though actually the "barring accidents" line comes from The War Games, long before the 12-regeneration limit was introduced (in The Deadly Assassin). It fits if you want it to, but if you want to see it as a retcon you can do that as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In any case, in Shada the Doctor assumes that Chronotis must have been on his last regeneration when Chris tells him that he saw the Professor's body vanish. Whether Chronotis really did exceed his regeneration limit is not made explicit. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

there is quite a large fan speculation that the vast amount of Psychic Energy absorbed by The Doctor in "The Last of the Time Lords" actually recharged his regeneration potential essentially resetting him back to 12. Obviously this cannot be held as true unless someone from the production team decides to verify it. 86.21.13.25 (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Prime Directive or Temporal Prime Directive

It has been suggested that, since perfecting the science of time travel, they have withdrawn, bound by the moral complexity of interfering in the natural flow of history (compare with the Prime Directive from Star Trek).

Which is better to refer unto? The one relating unto space travel or time-travel? DrWho42 22:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Temporal Prime Directive may be technically closer to the concept (non-intervention in time), but I think that the Prime Directive is better known, and also carries the same slightly paternalistic associations as the Time Lords' non-interference principles ("we won't interfere in the development of lesser species"). I'd go with Prime Directive, myself. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

On first blush, the TPD is more relevant. However, the TPD ultimately derives from the PD, whose rationale and background are given a much more thorough discussion in its own article; so I would lean on the side of leaving it as is. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

it has been implied on several occasions on the show that interference in "Established Events" is forbidden. Presumably, events to which the Time-Lords have no knowledge about are free to be visited, indeed on a number of occasions, The Doctor was directly or indirectly responsible for established events in history, like the great fire of london. I would suggest that if a time-traveller is not aware of the events that SHOULD take place, then he/she simply becomes a part of those events rather than altering them. 86.21.13.25 (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Regeneration mechanism

No mention of the technology featured in Mawdryn Undead while discussing how regenerations can be obtained, either additionally or originally? –OrangeDog (talk • edits) 01:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Jenny

Can Jenny be considered a Time Lord? The only thing she's really got going for her is the Doctor's DNA. Cosmic Celery (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Has been covered previously. A clone is just a copy of whatever species, so barring any future events and barring original research this is what we get. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Race?

Is race really the correct term, or would it be more correct to say they are merely the elite class of the Gallifreyan race, or even only those who had attended the Time Lord academy, I noticed this when I saw Iris Wildthymes article refers to her as a renegade Time Lord, when iirc reference was made to her not having attended the academy in the books at some stage, I understood this to mean she wasn't a Time Lord, and neither were the outsiders who had rejected Time Lord society, while still being of the same alien race, Gallifreyan. From the Gallifrey page, it describes them thusly; Outside the city lie wastelands where "Outsiders", Gallifreyans who do not belong to the Time Lord elite, live in less technological tribal communities. which would seem to concur with what I thought. And in the Gallifrey audio series non-Gallifreyans are admitted into the Time Lord academy, presumbably then they would become Time Lords, in which case describing them as a race would be difficult, when they're not all of the same species I mean. Number36 04:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the series itself isn't terribly clear on either point. In the beginning, it was kind of assumed that the Doctor's race was called the Time Lords (in The War Games where they were first named). It was only years later in The Time Warrior that Gallifrey itself was named. And then we assumed that, oh, okay, Gallifreyans equals Time Lords. Then comes The Deadly Assassin, where we get the first hints that not all Time Lords are Time Lords (the Castellan's dialogue implies he is not a Time Lord), and then The Invasion of Time and Arc of Infinity where we see people in the Capitol who don't seem to be Time Lords at all. Then we get Romana's comments in Shada about Time Tots, which again implies that Time Lords are born, not made. So it's all relatively muddled. In general though, I feel that Time Lords should remain where they are because the general usage tends to use Time Lords and Gallifreyan interchangeably, and the problems should be simply noted in the text. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you're coming from in regards to general usage, but I don't see how the series itself was unclear in your examples, rather that information was provided slowly over time, what the viewers assumed based on the information presented at any one time isn't really relevant to what the show did actually show eventually, it doesn't appear to have contradicted itself in any of the examples you give for example. I don't see that Shada is a problem, one because of its slightly shakey claim to the main canon, and two, because you can still be born nobility but it's not a race as such.

The course the show seems to have taken from your examples is; 1. Don't know who the Doctors people are, 2. Some of the Doctors people are referred to as Timelords. 3. Gallifrey is named. 4.Show hints that not all of the Doctors race are Timelords. 4. We see not all Gallifreyans are Timelords. Just seems to me that 'race' isn't a correct term for what Timelords are from what we've seen on screen, it's a bit of a weird word though, I mean it barely has much meaning when applied to humans anymore, so it could be argued that merely by setting themselves apart and having a distinct culture from other Gallifreyans as a people that they can be classed as a race. There's still the problem of non-Gallifreyan Timelords though, but since that's really just the audios and to a lesser degree the books which are it seems, secondly to the main canon maybe that doesn't matter so much. Cheers for the feedback anyhow, sorry it took me a while to get back here.Number36 04:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Series is quite clear on this point, MOST individuals you meet will be Time Lords, unless you are on the home planet, as one MUST learn how to interact with the outside world, in order to leave, as one can contaminate the time stream: the reason only elite are allowed to leave. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.171.40.81 (talk • contribs) 17:17, February 24, 2007 (UTC)

Hi people :) I've read through some of this and I'd like to make a small contribution. I have a book that was released by the B.B.C, it's one of those books like the Dr Who Technical Manual. It includes the Black Scrolls of Rasillon. Now, I have to let you know that I'm doing this from memory, as the book is in storage. I'll be getting the book out as soon as I can to give you all the book number. Now in the book, the story begins after the war between the Galifreyans and the Vampires. It says in the book that Rasillon had a scientist make an immortality Virus that would be released out into the general population of Gallifrey. When the Scientist finished the virus, it was released. this was a virus that made some of the Gallifreyians regenerate, thus becoming the Time lords. the ones in the population that didn't die from the virus became the Citadel guards and workers. The book suggests that there is a small hostility between the guards and the Time lords. Now before i get Blasted, i did say that i was writing this from memory. As soon as i have the book in front of me I'll let you know. It also says that a second virus was made. the one that Rassilon himself and the creating scientist took. That this second Virus was the immortality that was the legend of Rassilon. Now i don't know what has been written in the new novels that may contradict this, as it was an old book. However when I have the book bar code thingy I'll give it to you so you can check it. I didn't know if it was worth mentioning. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregoryxyz (talk • contribs) 18:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I have to respond as a skeptic, because while this is interesting if it is considered canon then I really think there would be more mention of it. Still time will tell. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess you maybe right, that Time will only tell. As yet, i haven't had a chance to find the book. It was an old book, and with the reinvention of the new series, you maybe right. I just thought that i'd share the info with everyone. As the Doctor says, "Time is a big wibbley Wobbelly thing". The Writers may have changed the origins story to fit into their new vision of where they wanted the show to go. Gregoryxyz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC).

Extinction?

How can a race that can travel though time be extinct yet people still remeber them after all the weapon would have to wipe them completly from time or else you could just go back in time and it would be their. So what happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.19.108 (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I have no idea but good question. --86.133.203.166 (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that all Time Lords from everwhere and everywhen came together in one place and time to fight the daleks in the time war and got slaughtered. It has already been established that the whole war is "Time Locked" so presumably no time-travel to that period is possible, since the prior existance of Gallifrey and its inhabitants are at the heart of the Time Travelling communmity, all time periods in which Gallifery exists and which TimeLords are knocking around would be "Established Events" and thus forbidden. Since this "Time-Locking" thing is now canon, there is nothing to say that the Time Periods in which Gallifrey existed were totally Time Locked as well. Short answer is that no Time Travel to any period where Gallifrey existed and Time Lords existed is permitted or even possible. 86.21.13.25 (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There is presumably some sort of "Universal Standard Time" which all time sensitive races are linked by. The whole crossing of that time line would not bring the Time Lords back, as the Reapers (Fathers Day - 2005) would eat them all till time were back in place. Only on special missions would that adherence be breached (Genesis Of The Daleks). It wouyld also explain why they always meet in the same chronological order.--Bronn Maclaern (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Romana

I don't believe speculation about Romana belongs in the opening section. Firstly, as the introduction to the article, such speculation gets in the way of a concise overview of the topic: if it belongs anywhere, it belongs elsewhere in the text. Moreover, unless there's a reputable source which can be cited, it strikes me as fanon which runs counter to the (admittedly compromised) "last time lord" theme of the new series. Obviously, this is all subject to change in the next few days in any case, but I think a general tidying up of the opening section is in order anyway. MisterVodka (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC).

I'm sure our rules about speculation are pretty clear. I would also argue that focussing the largest paragraph of the intro on on the events in the last four years of a series that started forty plus years ago, is perhaps placing a bit too much emphasis there. Are Jenny, Donna and the clone of the Doctor really that significant to the subject of Time Lords that they should be mentioned in the intro? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The point being that the race of Time Lords is functionally extinct. I'd agree to moving the list of known Time Lords to it's own section, but as for "speculation" I'd have to disagree. "Canon" is generally what is seen on the screen, and leaves other forms of media (books, graphic novels, audio presentations) aside. Lady Romana remained in e-space, as confirmed multiple times in series canon, so she would not have been on Gallifrey when it was destroyed. Series canon doesn't state she returned, so logic states she is still alive Rapier1 (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope sorry that is speculation. Whenever the last time it was stated that Romana was in e-space is the last time we know for certain that she was in e-space. Everything else is speculation. Looking at the facts and drawing a conclusion, however logical you may consider it to be, is original research. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Crave pardon, but that is absurd. If I were to state that Citizen Z of Hiroshima moved to Canada in 1940, and it was known that Hiroshima was destroyed in 1945, why would I have any reason to think Citizen Z was killed when Hiroshima was destroyed? This isn't original research, it's simply stating a fact. Rapier1 (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In-series, it's not "all residents of Gallifrey were killed", it's "all (other) Time Lords are gone from time and space". There's no indication from the programme that some may have survived in another dimension. At least, not until very recently. MisterVodka (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, I've moved the entire reference to its own section and modified the wording somewhat, but to your point: In-series, it is actually "Gallifrey and the Time Lord civilization were destroyed by the Doctor in a Time War with the Daleks". Because their home planet is gone, it's assumed by other races that the Time Lords are gone (see: Episode 158: The End of the World, where the character Jabe is shocked to find that a Time Lord still exists after scanning the Doctor). Rapier1 (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in-series, the Doctor mentions explicitly that there are no other Time Lords in existence, the end of the above episode being one of them (as well as "Dalek" and "Utopia"). DonQuixote (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Point, but he is very soon shown to be incorrect - ala the Master, who was not on Gallifrey when it was destroyed. Rapier1 (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave as is, especially given the likely upcoming changes, and appreciate the compromise. Should say, however, that as I recall it wasn't the Master's absence from Gallifrey that saved him, but the fact he was technically human at the time. I dare say all will be clearer in a couple of days. MisterVodka (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I also appreciate the willingness to compromise, nice to meet another friendly editor. We'll leave as is then. Thanks! Rapier1 (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A small point: please don't talk about "series canon" with regard to Doctor Who. The BBC has never made a statement about what is or is not canonical in Doctor Who, and the series' writers and producers have gone out of their way to say that there is no "Doctor Who canon". Here, we can talk about what was seen on television and leave each reader to determine for him- or herself whether they want to "count" stories from other media, or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That is an excellent point, and I apologize for the slip. The Beeb has actually made a point of NOT using the term "canon" when it refers to Doctor Who. I should have stated "in-series". My vocabulary has been shaped by editing a lot of Star Trek and Star Wars articles where canonicity is actually codified according to source and timeframe. Thanks for the clarification. Rapier1 (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

American or British English?

I know that this is a stupid thing to be asking about, but are Doctor Who articles written in American or British English? I thought it said 'British English' in the Doctor Who manual of style, but a couple of people have been changing everything back to American English spellings (e.g. civilization instead of civilisation). If it doesn't really matter I won't bother. (Since I'm an American in my mind it's spelled wrong but Doctor Who is a British show.....) -Letsy2 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Since it is a British show, all Doctor Who related articles should indeed use British spelling. There are those who may honestly not know that that is the case. You can refer those to WP:ENGVAR. — Edokter • Talk • 01:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Black Time Lords

The first paragraph of the "Physical characteristics" section appears to contradict itself:

All Time Lords in the classic television series were portrayed by white adults, ... A black Time Lord appears in the 2007 episode "The Sound of Drums" ... a black Time Lord was seen in various crowd scenes in 1975's The Deadly Assassin.

If there was an extra in The Deadly Assassin who was black, then his appearance is no more or less remarkable than that of the black extra who portrayed a Time Lord in The Sound of Drums. 151.197.22.58 (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is this Black timelord anyway in the sound of drums ive not seen him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soraking007 (talk • contribs)

In the flasback scene where the Master looks into the vortex. DonQuixote (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Gallifreyans who are not Time Lords

I have to assume that you're asking about this part. You really should bring some things to the Discussion page if you're not clear. The basic jist is that it's heavily implied/hinted throughout the series that "Time Lords" are not a proper race of their own, but more the ruling class of the planet Gallifrey. This is never clearly stated one way or another, partially because many Time Lords might not even be entirely certain of thier history (barring renegades like the Doctor who largely ignore the taboo of delving into the racial history). --Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As I recall the Shebogans are referred to as "outside Time Lord society" which is ambiguous. MartinSFSA (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen the Invasion of Time in a while, but I believe at one point Nesbin says is, or used to be, a Time Lord. I find the whole bit about "Child of Gallifrey" implying that children aren't Time Lords and thus there is a difference between Time Lords and Gallifreyans as a bit of a stretch. What should one call them? "Children of Time Lord?"

Parmadil (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

How do they breed / give birth

Like humans? But here's said that he was born from the loom. How is it even possible? 95.59.80.40 (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Masters lightning powers

I don't know much about time lords, or the reasons the master had them, but should his ability to shoot lightning, jump high and somehow turn people to bones be mentioned? Maybe it's to do with his special regen but I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.60.124 (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

well when he was regenerating he was stopped half-way. this put him into a dying situation where he is burning his life force. now this puts him at a dangerous situation where the body is exerting more power than needed. this is what thedoctor meant by burning his lifeforce. this excess power includes power of motion, electricity for the heart, and basic body functions. this excess is why he gets hungry quickly. its not because he has a large apitite but because he burns it quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.4.119 (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Information on various Timelords

Does information on various Timelords who don't have their own article (eg. Runcible, Flavia, etc.) have a place in this article, or should Stubs be created for them? Also, what's the source for a Timelords heart rate? (The article says 170 beats a minute) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.155.4.139 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Plus the phrase "170 beats a minute" is ambiguous anyway. Is that 170 for each heart, or (probably more likely) 85 for each, totalling 170? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.96.22 (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"Amy's" child

At the end of the article, it mentions something about Amy's child displaying regenerative powers--but we have no confirmation that the child is indeed Amy's. There are suggestions, but it's far from confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.222.6 (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. At this point anything is pure speculation. DonQuixote (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A good man goes to war just aired YESTERDAY. Thanks for the spoilers, nerds. Guess I don't have to watch it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.35.83.131 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This was in Day of the Moon, which aired before 1 May 2011. DonQuixote (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

John and Gillian

Was there ever anything said to indicate that John and Gillian were of the same species as the Doctor - or even that they were aliens ? Any discussion of their parents ? (I suspect not). So it is really just speculation that they were Time Lords ? They could just as easily be adoptive grandchildren. -- Beardo (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The default position is that they're what the narrative says, they're his grandchildren. If you can provide a reliable source that they're adopted, etc. feel free to include that in the article. DonQuixote (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Two Hearts. Awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.4.134 (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Another Missing Time Lord

I saw it was mentinoed that Susan wasn't mentioned, but what about the Doctors Daughter? She was a genetic clone of the doctor, which makes her a time lord correct? She was killed, but then at the end of the Doctors Daughter you see her get up and get into the space ship, vowing to keep running and fighting evil like her father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.106.56 (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There was also an unnamed Time Lord at the start of Terror of the Autons, who warned the Doctor about the Master. 50.76.78.193 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources that the Melkur and Yana are aliases of the Master and not separate characters

Primary sources:

• The Keeper of Traken: "Of course, the Master."
• Utopia: "I am the Master."

Secondary sources

• Doctor Who: The Television Companion: "It is then revealed to be the Master's TARDIS. It's owner, still blackened and emaciated as when last seen, hopes to use the Source's power to regenerate himself.
• Radio Times: "A yawning yarn abruptly cranks up to exhilarating when Yana (peerless Derek Jacobi) is revealed as the Master, then regenerates – into John Simm."

And please note the difference between a primary source and a secondary source. Primary sources can be used to summarise their contents. These two primary source clearly indicate that Melkur and Yana are aliases. The secondary sources are used for real-world production information. The secondary sources clearly indicate that Melkur and Yana were meant to be the Master from their first appearances. Also, your insistence that there can only be one version of the characters (the version you like--the Monk/War Chief/Master amalgam) has gone beyond disruptive, and that's at the core of this. Wikipedia deals with characters from a real-world perspective, which includes every version of the characters that have been put on paper--including their original versions (the separate Monk, War Chief and Master versions). Your insertion of known aliases of the Master character (Melkur and Yana) is WP:POINTY and reportable. DonQuixote (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Monk vs. War Chief

This is coming up again. Was a resolution ever achieved on them being the same character or not? There's definitely no mention of it on the article page. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 16:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup, because every time anyone added anything it was usually deleted, and the article sometimes locked. Reliable Sources were either dismissed as "in-universe", "primary sources", "Secondary sources", or "I don't like what that implies, I'm removing it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.62.248 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The facts are that the primary sources state that the characters are of the Doctor's race. For the War Chief, the primary source goes even further and states that their race is Time Lord. Secondary sources also state that the Monk and the War Chief are Time Lords, and this article should reflect that.

As to being the same character, the FASA role playing game states that the Master used to be the Monk, and that's true within the context of the FASA role playing game as a primary source (and is mentioned as such in the relevant articles). As a secondary source, it doesn't mention anything about the production of the television programme, so it can't be used as such. That's it. Unless the IP can cite a reliable secondary source which states what he wants, we're not going to reflect the opinions and beliefs of a single editor but rather reflect what reliable sources say. DonQuixote (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Partial list of Time Lords appearing in Doctor Who

This list is long enough that it may warrant a page of its own. I am not going to take it upon myself to do this change, I merely wish to throw it out there for discussion. G S Palmer (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Probably not a viable idea, actually. Had some time to think about it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this section be pruned significantly to "Notable Time Lords", given that it's a mess as it is. Most of the entries have not nearly enough to warrant a mention. Smith(talk) 17:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)