Talk:Time Lord

Missing Time lords

What about Susan, if we accept Eric Saward's contribution to the ouvre?

Saward's story aside, actually, Susan should be on the list, since we've already categorised her as a Time Lord - with a side note. I'll take care of it. Incidentally, which anniversary special was this? 1993? --khaosworks 13:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll have a look tonight - it's on my beside table. It has Colin Baker in it...GraemeLeggett 15:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cool. I know there've been a few, so it's good to specify. --khaosworks 15:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Birth of a Renegade

I am uncomfortable with placing Saward's story within the portion of the article that is basically an iteration of the background that the novels and audios seem to draw on, i.e. the Cartmel Masterplan. It's not that Saward's story is not valid, but it's so contradictory to what current fanon seems to assume that it seems out of place there. The reason I say that Saward's story is generally ignored by fans is because that appears to be true at the moment - everybody working on the licensed fiction seems to draw from the "Other" story in Lungbarrow or at least does not contradict it, and nobody appears to make any reference to the Saward version.

Part of my uneasiness also stems from the fact that there's a lot of different stories out there as well which are also ignored, like the origin of the Cybermen on a medieval type Mondas reprinted in Banks' Cybermen book that no-one seriously even considers as canon, so if Saward's story is in there why not those? I grant that as the script editor during the 80s, his story carries a bit of weight, so I'm not sure what a good solution would be here, as I am also hesitant in leaving it out. Perhaps the history section needs a rewrite to sort out on-screen from off. --khaosworks 09:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it helps to illustrate the rich variety of the history. (or that canon is what you want it to be) The greatest problem with the "ignored by fandom" is in what fandom means - we can't quantify it, making NPOV difficult. As it was a one off in a magazine and 20 years ago, I suspect only some of those who read it at the time took it into their personal canon and the rest forgot. The Catrmel masterplan have a broader reach in time though maybe known by fewer numbers???. Perhaps we need to identify the sketchy TV history from the alternative threads of the novels etc. Let me try something with that bit of the section it can always rv. GraemeLeggett 10:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

KLF

"Doctorin the TARDIS" was before their KLF days. The name of the group was "The Timelords". -- Tarquin 11:43 Aug 25, 2002 (PDT)

The Master, the Monk and the War Chief

Both an interview with Terrance Dicks in The Essential Doctor Who: The Master by Panini Magazines and the official website establishes that the production team and/or copyright holders, past and presently, consider Terror of the Autons, and not The Time Meddler nor The War Games, the debut story of the Master, while the Doctor Who Extra for "Death in Heaven" says that the Master debuted in 1971. I don't know what else to say to this. TardisTybort (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Consensus has not changed in this regard. I have warned User:Dalekbuster524, including a request to discuss on the talk page rather than continue edit-warring. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 20:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It will always "keep coming up", for the simple fact that there is an abundance of material confirming the fact that "they" are one and the same. However, certain people, for whatever reason, later decided to split one character into three. And thus there will also be information espousing the revisionist position that "they were always intended to be different characters".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.126 (talk • contribs)

If there's an abundance of material, please cite at least 10 of those. DonQuixote (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Merger Proposal with History of the Time Lords

Given that there is a significant "History" section on this page, I don't think it makes sense to have a separate page for history. I don't think that this article is long enough to warrant a separate article for this section, so I propose that History of the Time Lords be folded into Time Lord#History, with any relevant information included and proper subheadings and organisation developed. ACB Smith (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: the main article is already long, and the history article is (mostly) carefully referenced and certainly not brief. Therefore a summary/main structure, as currently exists, seems to work. Klbrain (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)