![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The discussion really should be here instead of at Page moves. That being said, the reason for the definitive article in front of Meddling Monk is a combination of historical useage and inertia. It can be argued that this is his full title, not merely "Meddling Monk", but at the same time, there's the consistency issue, as we have entries of " Valeyard", not "The Valeyard" and " Rani (Doctor Who)", not "The Rani" and more especially " The Doctor (Doctor Who)", so it's starting to look like a bit of a hodge podge. There's also " The Inquisitor" and " The Other (Doctor Who)". I'm still considering what's the better way to go about this, but this will have a knock-on effect on the titles of those articles as well. -- khaosworks ( talk • contribs) 22:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 13:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
What evidence is there, really, that this character's name is "The Meddling Monk"? Surely, the monk was just a disguise for the purposes of the specific story, and that his continued use of the disguise, as seen in DMP, was because the Doctor had stranded him in an era where the disguise was still relevant. Should the reference to him as "The Time Meddler" by the DWM story, "4-Dimensional Vistas", not be given greater credence as an attempt to take the name of the character from the title of the serial in which he appeared, rather than the deceptive narrative? He wasn't a monk when he was stealing all that other loot we see in his TARDIS in "The Time Meddler". He took other disguises appropriate to the various eras to aid his plunder.
Somehow, I think the article needs to go a bit further in explaining why DWM made the choice they did. I think it wouldn't be too far to suggest that "The Time Meddler" be given consideration in the first sentence of the article as an alternative name for the character, and then to explain later in the article why there's ambiguity about the name. Calling the character, "The Meddlng Monk"—no matter how well-entrenched that now is in fan circles—is a bit like saying the name of the Master is "Mr. Magister", or any one of the dozens of other disguises the Master had. Somehow, over the years, "the meddling Monk" has turned into "The Meddling Monk", and it's not really accurate. CzechOut 00:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
There has been speculation that Mr. Harold Saxon in the upcoming finale to the latest series of Doctor Who is the Monk. The Monk; the first enemy time lord the Doctor met in the original series, wanted King Harold the Saxon to win the Battle of Hastings and rewrite history so that the Saxons were victorious. It could be this "Saxon" is the name sake of that attempt, and the first enemy time lord the Doctor meets in the new series as well. 207.202.227.125 01:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
good point, although, if he is the monk then surely he would be preaching instead ofrunning the country??? --
click here
14:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's being confrimed that the Master will be in the series finale, so the chances of seeing two Time Lord enemies of the Doctor seems slim, but you never know. Michael Mad 15:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
On my viewing of "Escape Switch", the Monk was not marooned on the desolate planet, it was merely somewhere he'd landed before realising that his directional circuit had been removed. The Monk then complains (and I paraphrase) that now he is doomed to wander the universe like the Doctor. But that he will get his own back, one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.68.223 ( talk) 10:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
This article contains a LOT of wild claims, fanboy speculation, and bizarre OR conclusions. What is lacks are real valid sources which back up ANY of the statements presented as fact. I have tagged many of these. These have previously been removed, but since nobody has made any effort to provide WP:RS, I have put them back in. The way the article reads now is most definitely not up to Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.62 ( talk) 11:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
and {{
Original research}}
: these should be sufficient - you may raise specific points on this talk page. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)But it isn't "specific points". Going line-by-line, MOST of the article is unsourced and OR. Even the article's name itself is OR! This discussion would inevitable focus on one or two points(assuming any sort of discussion even takes place). Until the,m each and every point must be marked, for someone to either improve, source, or remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.62 ( talk) 05:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Someone has added 2 citation, both of which are links to other Wikipedia articles. Namely the "claimed to have left Gallifrey 50 years after the Doctor" and the "last seen on a desolate icy planet". Since when it is considered WP:RS to link to another Wikipedia article, which also doesn't have the WP:RS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.62 ( talk) 17:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
But surely that is WP:OR? Those articles don't have the WP:RS either. Thus you are using one unsourced Wikipedia article as the source for another unsourced Wikipedia article. You would need the plot summary of a reliable published book, not another Wikipedia article that is similarly lacking anything to back up much of its content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.62 ( talk) 17:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The "Other appearances" section is just people giving their own interpretation of stories, some of which were inaccurate, and nearly all of which were completely unsourced. Of course, the only one with any source was the FASA Game. Also, having 'Mortimus' appear somewhere is unrelated here. Unless it states it is the same character as this article, it's WP:OR. The whole Divided Loyalties thing, the claims of what unpublished chapters would have said and what was hinted at in other books, the POV nonsense, and all unsourced. As such, a lot(though far from all) of it has been removed. If anyone wants to reinstate any of that, it will need to be properly WP:V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 ( talk) 12:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
1)What does it say in the book? Exactly? Please quote it here. Just so we can be sure it's not OR.
2)DonQuixote is fixated with Divided Loyalties. Yet it never mentions anything about a character called 'The Monk' least of all one who has a biography that is anything listed in this article. And it's totally unsourced either way.
3)That's the big thing, sources. This whole article reads like some small child's bizarre interpretation of something they've heard third- or fourth- hand. The one thing it sorely lacks is any sort of RS. ANd most of the so-called RS here, are sources where what is claimed to be verified is not actually listed in the source that is cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 ( talk) 15:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, does the fact that the book is effectively saying that anything or everything written within, concerning the Monk/Master's history, is potentially bovine feces, mean that it isn't a reliable enough source for Wikipedia anyway? 82.26.182.43 ( talk) 15:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Er, that's in-universe. And it's merely saying that the players are free to change elements of the Role Playing Game as they see fit. However, the Module itself identifies the Master with 'The Monk'. It's like if you get together with friends to play football. There are official rules of the game. But you and your friends having fun on a Saturday afternoon may choose to mix it up a bit by changing a few rules. But that doesn't change what the actual rules are. And typical DonQuixote for trying to distort what it actually says, and making several illogical leaps from there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 ( talk) 16:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, the article is already skewed as it is. Some may say that this article existing in its own right is already OR/POV. But the point is, how would you suggets the information be added? Could you show a rough text here on the discussion page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 ( talk) 19:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Why are the events of the novel 'Quantum Archangel' being contested, or having doubt cast upon them?
If you google 'Quantum Archangel Monk' you will find multiple references to them.
86.25.30.125 ( talk) 13:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
86 is taking things to unfortunate lengths. At this point the article may be beyond salvation anyway, as it's just a bunch of fanon and OR slung together to create somebody's POV fan fiction idea rather than anything using proper RS. I wash my hands of this mess of an "Article". Feel free to add whatever fan fiction you like, I'm beyond caring at this point. 41.132.178.141 ( talk) 15:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I've looked at what's happened since I stopped editing, and 86 has reinstated all his/her nonsense, while DonQuxiote has now added cn tags to the one story that is unambiguously the same character. Thank you for confirming my worst fears about mankind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 ( talk) 16:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
1)The Meddling Monk or simply The Monk.... Says who? The episode crdits list the character as "The Monk". "The Meddling Monk" is the name of an episode, not a character.
2)The character appeared in two stories... However, an interview with Terrance Dicks(which I'm trying to find the link to) establishes that the character of The War Chief was supposed to be implied to the the regenerated character from The Time Meddler. Further, Doctor Who Magazine Issue 75(April 1983) previews the then-forthcoming The Kings' Demons with references to The Time Meddler. Of course the villain in The King's Demons turned out to be The Master. Two years later the FASA Role Playing Game stated that "The Monk" and "The War Chief" were prior incarnations of The Master. And a 1988 edition of Mastermind had a contestant with the specialist subject of Doctor Who being asked "In which serial did The Mad Monk(not 'meddling') first use the name The 'Master' "?
3)[The Monk] claimed to have left the Doctor's then unnamed home planet some 50 years after the Doctor did... he did no such thing. The Doctor remarks to Vicki and Steven that they're from the same place but I would say that I am fifty years earlier(Doctor's words). The character who the article is about NEVER mentions ANY time or age or anything, besides his stating I'm getting too old for this at one point.
4)...when the Doctor first encountered him... The first encounter in the television show. It could be reworded that way. It is made abundantly clear both in the show and in other media that this is not their first encounter.
5)...hence the name by which he became known... which one? The credits refer to him as "The Monk", Doctor Who Magazine refers to him as "The Time Meddler", Mastermind refers to him as "The Mad Monk", Dicks refers to him as "The War Chief", The FASA Game states that he is "The Master", while he simply disguised himself as "a monk". Meanwhile, Wikipedia has an article called "The Meddling Monk".
6)The two never met on-screen again....I need to find the link to the Dicks interview, and then there's the FASA Game and the Mastermind episode(it was 1988 but I'll try and find the exact date. Of note it was BEFORE any unauthorized or unofficial guides which are used by some as a Reliable Source).
7)...the Monk last being seen... (see above, and note the "Meddling" part has been dropped by whoever wrote this article)
8)Unlike the Doctor's adversaries....such as The Master... see FASA, Mastermind etc.
9)The Monk was presented as a comic figure... Because he planned to wipe out the entire Viking fleet with a nuclear warhead?
10)...who was not half as clever as he thought he was...The Doctor reduced the "Monk's" TARDIS interior to the size of a small doll's house, yet he repaired the circuit(using only 11the Century technology) and tracked the Doctor down. Later, the Doctor disabled his chameleon circuit, yet he repaired that almost immediately, something the Doctor was NEVER able to do.
11)...never seemed to realise the seriousness of what he was doing...s with ALL these points there are NO WP:RS and it is all WP:OR. My comments are also largely WP:OR (for now), but it is worth pointing out this section is supposed to show the difference between "The Meddling Monk"(or whatever he's called at this point) and The Master. In terms of not realising the seriousness of doing something...watch The Master in Logopolis.
12)...disguising how dangerous a person like The Monk(I think "Meddling" has been abandoned by now) can really be...well pure WP:OR really
13)...propagated mainly... Says who? Pure [[WP:OR}] and WP:POV. LONG before the FASA game existed it was widely held as fact. Of course my saying that is no more a WP:RS than what is stated in the article, but it is certainly no LESS a WP:RS than what is stated in the article.
14)...this theory has not been as widespread in recent years...Says who? A quick search of Google dispels that idea. Also the fact that it's referred to as a theory would make it on sound footing.
15)...that The Doctor and The Monk had not met previously...The Monk immediately recognises The Doctor, The Doctor states And what are you trying to get up to this time? Best of all, the same people who stated that they'd "not met previously"(first published in The Discontinuity Guide would later point to Divided Loyalties as "proof" that "Mortimus The Time Meddling Mad Monk" and "Doktor Magnus Felix Kriegslieter The War Chief" aren't the same person.
If this can all be boiled down to simple problems...it is the COMPLETE LACK OF WP:RS. It is the fact that the article is a bunch of stitched-together myths that have been swirling amongst people who clearly haven't even watched the episodes properly. People reading something in a fanzine, or putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5, and then writing a whole article using these "facts"! There are no RS, and it's all WP:OR, and a pretty poor job of OR as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.62 ( talk) 07:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't the theory about the Monk being the Master first made popular in a manual for a DW RPG in the 80s? Does anyone know anything about this? — P Ingerson (talk) 21:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Facts from tv show: The Doctor and the "Monk" are both renegade Time Lords who stole TARDISes.
The "Monk" was NOT "stranded" anywhere. He could travel his stolen TARDIS, he just couldn't control where/when he was going.
The "Monk" was never an actual monk. It was a disguise.
The "Monk" instantly recognises the Doctor.
Facts from other media:
The novelisation of Time Meddler explitly states that the Doctor and the "Monk" knew each other before this story.
The novelisation of The War Games explicitly states that the Doctor and the "War Chief" knew each other before that story, and that they are the only two renegade Time Lords.
The novelisation of Terror of the Autons states that the Doctor and the Master knew each other before that story, that "Master" is a new name for that Time Lord, that the Master had both 'meddled' before, as well as having organised war games...and that the Doctor and the Master are the only two renegade Time Lords. Also, the Doctor is surprised that the Master has a properly functioning TARDIS.
Thenovelisation of The Doomsday Weapon explicitly states that only two TARDISes have ever been stolen, one by the Doctor, and one by the Master, that the Doctor's TARDIS is inferior, that the Master had organised the events of The War Games, and that the Doctor and the Master are the only two renegade Time Lords.
The novelisation of The Sea Devils explicitly states that the Doctor and the Master are the only two renegade Time Lords.
The novelisation of The Three Doctors explicitly states that, prior to facing Omega, the Doctor had only ever faced one other Time Lord...the Master.
Ever wonder why there was never a "Monk sequel" or "War Chief sequel" or "Master origin story"?
And remember, the Delgado UNIT years Master, then the burned Pratt/Beevers Master, then the Master stealing the bodies of Tremas (Ainley) and Bruce (Roberts) were all the same incarnation. And, of course, people like Jacobi and Simm give thier OWN interpretations of the character, playing different incarnations.
The "nonsense" is what Virgin Books and Big Finish Audios served up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 ( talk) 10:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Because, there is are at least two RS from the time stating that FACT. Written by the people closest to the source, not some fanboy website several decades after the event. The FASA Game, and the "background" section for board game Doctor Who: The Game of Time % Space. Add to that, the OBVIOUS interpretation, which is clearly NOT OR drawn from the Target novels, and only someone deliberately pushing their WP:POV would make comments such as yours.
This article takes it as plain fact that there is a character in Doctor Who who actually uses the name "The Monk" in the same way as the Doctor is "The Doctor". It then contains a rambling, largely unsourced mess, which reads like the worst kind of fan fiction. And, buried in there somewhere, under "Other appearances", it mentions 'ONEsource to the contrary. But someone just glancing at the article would never see that, and would likely give up reading it before that, due to the fact that it's very poorly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 ( talk) 19:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
In the Doctor Who role-playing game published by FASA in 1985, the Monk features as an earlier incarnation of the Master,[4] who is depicted as being his sixth incarnation which he personally chose after a failed rebellion on Gallifrey forced him to flee.[5] After the events of The Time Meddler, the game suggests that the Monk was able to replace the missing dimensional components, but a minor miscalculation sent him, and his TARDIS to a planet in the 'crack' between realities, a planet which he later named 'Merast' and used as a base of operations. It also cost him a full regeneration, however he was able to keep his current appearance.[6] After the Monk's second encounter with the First Doctor on the planet Tigus, he regenerated into a 'strikingly handsome, middle-aged man'.[5]
The Monk also appears in the New Adventures novel No Future by Paul Cornell, in which he is given the name "Mortimus". The novel was the last of a story arc published to coincide with the series' 30th anniversary in 1993, in which the Seventh Doctor encounters various alternate realities that have been created due to the Monk's meddling with time, including a reality where the Third Doctor was killed in his confrontation with the Silurians (Blood Heat), attempting to distract the Doctor while he helps the Vardans to invade Earth, thus getting their mutual revenge on the Doctor for their losses during their past confrontations with him. Although the Monk seemingly traps the Doctor on the same ice planet he was himself exiled to, thanks to the betrayal of the Doctor's companion Ace, it is revealed at the conclusion of the novel that Ace was simply pretending to side with the Monk to defeat him, the novel ending with the Monk being apparently captured by a Chronovore that he had imprisoned to help him alter time. The Monk, once again as "Mortimus", makes an appearance in the Past Doctor Adventures novel Divided Loyalties; as part of a flashback to the First Doctor's days at the Academy, Mortimus is seen as part of a group of students, taught by Borusa among others, known as the Deca, a group of activists campaigning for more intervention, alongside the Doctor, Ushas (the Rani), Koschei (the Master), Magnus (the War Chief), Drax, a spy named Vansell, Millennia, Rallon and Jelpax. He aids the Deca in learning about the Celestial Toymaker, several members of which then undertake a disastrous trip to his realm.[7] The Monk later makes a cameo appearance, as "Mortimus", in The Quantum Archangel, working alongside the Rani, Drax and The Master in an artificially created parallel universe.[8]
The television stories The Time Meddler and The Daleks' Master Plan get very brief points, but the other media gets long, rambling sections?
In particular, the whole novels and, especially, the Big Finish sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 ( talk) 12:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
A character credited as 'The Monk' appears in The Time Meddler and The Daleks' Masterplan. That's the point. So please stop trying to remove all mentions of the character. DonQuixote ( talk) 13:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes there are. The article even states as much...Same with the "monk"...
Ok, I'm done. It's obvious that you have no interest in learning about primary sources, secondary sources, etc.--you're just here to advance your fan theory. I bent over backwards to take the time to explain guidelines and policies to you, but they're just falling on deaf ears and it's getting rather tiresome. From here on, if you stray outside the guidelines I'll just point to the guidelines and policies and leave it at that. Seriously, if you can't tell what a work of nonfiction is (secondary sources), then you shouldn't be trying to write a tertiary source. DonQuixote ( talk) 07:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to try to explain this one final way, and, as I've said, I'm done trying to explain it.
Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde is an adaptation of the novel. The film does not have to have the same version of the character as the novel and vise-versa--especially if there are other adaptations (film, television, games, etc.). Similary the FASA game is an adaptation of the television programme. The game does not have to have the same version of the character as the programme and vise-versa--especially if there are other adaptations (film, games, novels, etc.). DonQuixote ( talk) 11:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
As the interviews with people who worked on the series
along with the Target novelisations
Plus, the episode The Time Meddler made clear..."monk" is just a disguise
But you are clearly showing POV preference towards one version.
@ 197.86.143.126: Leave the parenthetical comments to yourself. Unless a secondary source makes that comment, let the reader make their own connections and observations. DonQuixote ( talk) 11:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
It's part of a summary of a tv episode. If that doesn't count, then most of the article should be deleted. And, your post reads like a personal attack. Try not to be so abrasive and offensive.
Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence.That is to say, unless you can cite those interviews or behind-the-scenes books, etc., (or more than just a couple of opinion pieces--at least ten) your POV is still fringe. DonQuixote ( talk) 10:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Wrong on all counts. As usual. By the way, didn't you say that you weren't going to edit this article any more? Only for this little temper tantrum...
No, here... [10]. Or is that a totally different person?
There is nothing at all in either The Time Meddler or The Daleks Master Plan to make anyone think that the character of the Time Meddler (and NOT The Monk btw) is a Time Lord from Gallifrey.
His stolen treasures are all from Earth history. His various 'meddlings' all involve Earth history, eg. Stonehenge, Leonardo Da Vinci, a London Bank, the Battle of Hastings etc. Actually, who other than a human of British descent would even know about the long-term effects of the Battle of Stamford Bridge? Or the Battle itself, for that matter. In fact, many British people today know nothing of it.
It is also worth remembering that the Doctor of the era had one heart, and referred to himself as "a human being". Which is why the so-called "ignorant" spin-offs (World Distributors, TV Comic, Cushing movies) said the Doctor was human. In fact, the so-called "regeneration" in The Tenth Planet was 100% dependent on the technology of the TARDIS, and had nothing to do with the Doctor's physiology. He also referred to himself as "human" in Evil of the Daleks, and still had the single heart in The Wheel in Space.
It's only with Season Six that the Doctor becomes a Time Lord. (The first character identified as a Time Lord is the 'War Chief'.) And then, from that point on the Doctor is a Time Lord, and regenerations are part of his genetic make-up.
We then get Roger Delgado as the Master. And it was repeatdly stated that ONLY TWO Time Lords had ever stolen a TARDISand left Gallifrey...the Doctor and the Master. And the events of The War Games were repeatedly said to be part of the History of the Master and the Doctor. Meaning that the War Chief and the Master were unambiguously one and the same.
But, if only TWO Time Lords stole a TARDIS, then Butterworth is the Master. And this was explicitly stated in various OFFICIALLY LICENSED AND AUTHORISED spin-offs such as eg. FASA and the Board Game.
This then led to a snarky backlash, which resulted in the likes of No Future and The Book of Kells, more attempts to force "continuity" than actual stories. And today we get barrel scrapings like "Too Many Masters".
Yet, those ALL took for granted that Butterworth was playing a Time Lord. When there is NOTHING in the 65/66 stories he appeared in that even hints at that, and everything pointing to him being a human from the far future. The first actual character identified as a Time Lord was the War Chief/Master, and then the Doctor himself. And ONE dubious Lofficier book is hardly a "reliable source".
OFFICIALLY LICENSED AND AUTHORISED spin-offs--that's why all of them (FASA games, novels, Big Finish, etc.) are considered adaptations and published works in their own rights. DonQuixote ( talk) 11:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
fan mythsthat are
stitched togetherand yet, if you read the above, that's exactly what you're doing with the novelisations and the games. Seriously, all you're really doing is projecting your own behaviour onto other people. Wikipedia doesn't care about your fan theory. Period. Wikipedia only cares about documenting the different publications. And if you think that the current level of writing isn't notable, then you can start a RFC or DELETE. DonQuixote ( talk) 16:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Again, if you think that the Monk lacks notability, then you can start a RFC or DELETE. And, yeah, I agree that the actors from the spin-offs shouldn't be in the infobox, but that's my personal POV.
And you're missing the point again. The FASA game is an adaptation, just like the Big Finish productions--and they're both mentioned in Other media. And an adaptation carries far less weight than works of behind-the-scenes nonfiction. That's the point you're failing to get. DonQuixote ( talk) 19:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
And now somebody is blanket-reverting other issues.
1) The character is NEVER referred to as "the Monk" in 4-Dimensional Vistas. The article should state that.
2) The FASA Books explicitly state that the character's name is the Master, and that the Monk was just a one-off disguise. The article should state that.
3) Ditto the Board Game.
4) The "for his own amusement" is unsourced. He explicitly states in-episode in The Time Meddler WHY he's attempting to do what he's doing. And "for my own amusement" is NEVER stated.
5) There is a clear difference between what Peter Butterworth did on television, and ALL subsequent spin-off media, whether they be books, comics, audios, or anything else.
197.83.246.23 ( talk) 06:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
And a second (?) user is doing the same now. Note how there is NO explanation. NO discussion. 197.83.246.23 ( talk) 12:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok...it's quite apparent that you don't know or care to know what primary sources and secondary sources are nor what the difference between works of fiction and nonfiction are. It's quite clear that you don't know or care to know the difference between an original source material and its adaptations. Seriously, with characters like Dracula and Sherlock Holmes floating around, how can you not understand that there can be more than one version of a character in multiple media? These sources [that] also totally contradict each other
are different individual works of fiction with their own version of the characters. They don't have to agree with each other and it's not wikipedia's place to make them agree with each other. We're only here to document each publication and leave our POVs and comments to ourselves. What you want is a fan wiki or a fan page. Please go to one of those or create one of your own.
DonQuixote (
talk)
20:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The discussion really should be here instead of at Page moves. That being said, the reason for the definitive article in front of Meddling Monk is a combination of historical useage and inertia. It can be argued that this is his full title, not merely "Meddling Monk", but at the same time, there's the consistency issue, as we have entries of " Valeyard", not "The Valeyard" and " Rani (Doctor Who)", not "The Rani" and more especially " The Doctor (Doctor Who)", so it's starting to look like a bit of a hodge podge. There's also " The Inquisitor" and " The Other (Doctor Who)". I'm still considering what's the better way to go about this, but this will have a knock-on effect on the titles of those articles as well. -- khaosworks ( talk • contribs) 22:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 13:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
What evidence is there, really, that this character's name is "The Meddling Monk"? Surely, the monk was just a disguise for the purposes of the specific story, and that his continued use of the disguise, as seen in DMP, was because the Doctor had stranded him in an era where the disguise was still relevant. Should the reference to him as "The Time Meddler" by the DWM story, "4-Dimensional Vistas", not be given greater credence as an attempt to take the name of the character from the title of the serial in which he appeared, rather than the deceptive narrative? He wasn't a monk when he was stealing all that other loot we see in his TARDIS in "The Time Meddler". He took other disguises appropriate to the various eras to aid his plunder.
Somehow, I think the article needs to go a bit further in explaining why DWM made the choice they did. I think it wouldn't be too far to suggest that "The Time Meddler" be given consideration in the first sentence of the article as an alternative name for the character, and then to explain later in the article why there's ambiguity about the name. Calling the character, "The Meddlng Monk"—no matter how well-entrenched that now is in fan circles—is a bit like saying the name of the Master is "Mr. Magister", or any one of the dozens of other disguises the Master had. Somehow, over the years, "the meddling Monk" has turned into "The Meddling Monk", and it's not really accurate. CzechOut 00:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
There has been speculation that Mr. Harold Saxon in the upcoming finale to the latest series of Doctor Who is the Monk. The Monk; the first enemy time lord the Doctor met in the original series, wanted King Harold the Saxon to win the Battle of Hastings and rewrite history so that the Saxons were victorious. It could be this "Saxon" is the name sake of that attempt, and the first enemy time lord the Doctor meets in the new series as well. 207.202.227.125 01:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
good point, although, if he is the monk then surely he would be preaching instead ofrunning the country??? --
click here
14:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's being confrimed that the Master will be in the series finale, so the chances of seeing two Time Lord enemies of the Doctor seems slim, but you never know. Michael Mad 15:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
On my viewing of "Escape Switch", the Monk was not marooned on the desolate planet, it was merely somewhere he'd landed before realising that his directional circuit had been removed. The Monk then complains (and I paraphrase) that now he is doomed to wander the universe like the Doctor. But that he will get his own back, one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.68.223 ( talk) 10:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
This article contains a LOT of wild claims, fanboy speculation, and bizarre OR conclusions. What is lacks are real valid sources which back up ANY of the statements presented as fact. I have tagged many of these. These have previously been removed, but since nobody has made any effort to provide WP:RS, I have put them back in. The way the article reads now is most definitely not up to Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.62 ( talk) 11:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
{{
refimprove}}
and {{
Original research}}
: these should be sufficient - you may raise specific points on this talk page. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)But it isn't "specific points". Going line-by-line, MOST of the article is unsourced and OR. Even the article's name itself is OR! This discussion would inevitable focus on one or two points(assuming any sort of discussion even takes place). Until the,m each and every point must be marked, for someone to either improve, source, or remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.62 ( talk) 05:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Someone has added 2 citation, both of which are links to other Wikipedia articles. Namely the "claimed to have left Gallifrey 50 years after the Doctor" and the "last seen on a desolate icy planet". Since when it is considered WP:RS to link to another Wikipedia article, which also doesn't have the WP:RS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.62 ( talk) 17:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
But surely that is WP:OR? Those articles don't have the WP:RS either. Thus you are using one unsourced Wikipedia article as the source for another unsourced Wikipedia article. You would need the plot summary of a reliable published book, not another Wikipedia article that is similarly lacking anything to back up much of its content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.62 ( talk) 17:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The "Other appearances" section is just people giving their own interpretation of stories, some of which were inaccurate, and nearly all of which were completely unsourced. Of course, the only one with any source was the FASA Game. Also, having 'Mortimus' appear somewhere is unrelated here. Unless it states it is the same character as this article, it's WP:OR. The whole Divided Loyalties thing, the claims of what unpublished chapters would have said and what was hinted at in other books, the POV nonsense, and all unsourced. As such, a lot(though far from all) of it has been removed. If anyone wants to reinstate any of that, it will need to be properly WP:V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 ( talk) 12:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
1)What does it say in the book? Exactly? Please quote it here. Just so we can be sure it's not OR.
2)DonQuixote is fixated with Divided Loyalties. Yet it never mentions anything about a character called 'The Monk' least of all one who has a biography that is anything listed in this article. And it's totally unsourced either way.
3)That's the big thing, sources. This whole article reads like some small child's bizarre interpretation of something they've heard third- or fourth- hand. The one thing it sorely lacks is any sort of RS. ANd most of the so-called RS here, are sources where what is claimed to be verified is not actually listed in the source that is cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 ( talk) 15:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, does the fact that the book is effectively saying that anything or everything written within, concerning the Monk/Master's history, is potentially bovine feces, mean that it isn't a reliable enough source for Wikipedia anyway? 82.26.182.43 ( talk) 15:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Er, that's in-universe. And it's merely saying that the players are free to change elements of the Role Playing Game as they see fit. However, the Module itself identifies the Master with 'The Monk'. It's like if you get together with friends to play football. There are official rules of the game. But you and your friends having fun on a Saturday afternoon may choose to mix it up a bit by changing a few rules. But that doesn't change what the actual rules are. And typical DonQuixote for trying to distort what it actually says, and making several illogical leaps from there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 ( talk) 16:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, the article is already skewed as it is. Some may say that this article existing in its own right is already OR/POV. But the point is, how would you suggets the information be added? Could you show a rough text here on the discussion page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 ( talk) 19:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Why are the events of the novel 'Quantum Archangel' being contested, or having doubt cast upon them?
If you google 'Quantum Archangel Monk' you will find multiple references to them.
86.25.30.125 ( talk) 13:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
86 is taking things to unfortunate lengths. At this point the article may be beyond salvation anyway, as it's just a bunch of fanon and OR slung together to create somebody's POV fan fiction idea rather than anything using proper RS. I wash my hands of this mess of an "Article". Feel free to add whatever fan fiction you like, I'm beyond caring at this point. 41.132.178.141 ( talk) 15:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I've looked at what's happened since I stopped editing, and 86 has reinstated all his/her nonsense, while DonQuxiote has now added cn tags to the one story that is unambiguously the same character. Thank you for confirming my worst fears about mankind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 ( talk) 16:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
1)The Meddling Monk or simply The Monk.... Says who? The episode crdits list the character as "The Monk". "The Meddling Monk" is the name of an episode, not a character.
2)The character appeared in two stories... However, an interview with Terrance Dicks(which I'm trying to find the link to) establishes that the character of The War Chief was supposed to be implied to the the regenerated character from The Time Meddler. Further, Doctor Who Magazine Issue 75(April 1983) previews the then-forthcoming The Kings' Demons with references to The Time Meddler. Of course the villain in The King's Demons turned out to be The Master. Two years later the FASA Role Playing Game stated that "The Monk" and "The War Chief" were prior incarnations of The Master. And a 1988 edition of Mastermind had a contestant with the specialist subject of Doctor Who being asked "In which serial did The Mad Monk(not 'meddling') first use the name The 'Master' "?
3)[The Monk] claimed to have left the Doctor's then unnamed home planet some 50 years after the Doctor did... he did no such thing. The Doctor remarks to Vicki and Steven that they're from the same place but I would say that I am fifty years earlier(Doctor's words). The character who the article is about NEVER mentions ANY time or age or anything, besides his stating I'm getting too old for this at one point.
4)...when the Doctor first encountered him... The first encounter in the television show. It could be reworded that way. It is made abundantly clear both in the show and in other media that this is not their first encounter.
5)...hence the name by which he became known... which one? The credits refer to him as "The Monk", Doctor Who Magazine refers to him as "The Time Meddler", Mastermind refers to him as "The Mad Monk", Dicks refers to him as "The War Chief", The FASA Game states that he is "The Master", while he simply disguised himself as "a monk". Meanwhile, Wikipedia has an article called "The Meddling Monk".
6)The two never met on-screen again....I need to find the link to the Dicks interview, and then there's the FASA Game and the Mastermind episode(it was 1988 but I'll try and find the exact date. Of note it was BEFORE any unauthorized or unofficial guides which are used by some as a Reliable Source).
7)...the Monk last being seen... (see above, and note the "Meddling" part has been dropped by whoever wrote this article)
8)Unlike the Doctor's adversaries....such as The Master... see FASA, Mastermind etc.
9)The Monk was presented as a comic figure... Because he planned to wipe out the entire Viking fleet with a nuclear warhead?
10)...who was not half as clever as he thought he was...The Doctor reduced the "Monk's" TARDIS interior to the size of a small doll's house, yet he repaired the circuit(using only 11the Century technology) and tracked the Doctor down. Later, the Doctor disabled his chameleon circuit, yet he repaired that almost immediately, something the Doctor was NEVER able to do.
11)...never seemed to realise the seriousness of what he was doing...s with ALL these points there are NO WP:RS and it is all WP:OR. My comments are also largely WP:OR (for now), but it is worth pointing out this section is supposed to show the difference between "The Meddling Monk"(or whatever he's called at this point) and The Master. In terms of not realising the seriousness of doing something...watch The Master in Logopolis.
12)...disguising how dangerous a person like The Monk(I think "Meddling" has been abandoned by now) can really be...well pure WP:OR really
13)...propagated mainly... Says who? Pure [[WP:OR}] and WP:POV. LONG before the FASA game existed it was widely held as fact. Of course my saying that is no more a WP:RS than what is stated in the article, but it is certainly no LESS a WP:RS than what is stated in the article.
14)...this theory has not been as widespread in recent years...Says who? A quick search of Google dispels that idea. Also the fact that it's referred to as a theory would make it on sound footing.
15)...that The Doctor and The Monk had not met previously...The Monk immediately recognises The Doctor, The Doctor states And what are you trying to get up to this time? Best of all, the same people who stated that they'd "not met previously"(first published in The Discontinuity Guide would later point to Divided Loyalties as "proof" that "Mortimus The Time Meddling Mad Monk" and "Doktor Magnus Felix Kriegslieter The War Chief" aren't the same person.
If this can all be boiled down to simple problems...it is the COMPLETE LACK OF WP:RS. It is the fact that the article is a bunch of stitched-together myths that have been swirling amongst people who clearly haven't even watched the episodes properly. People reading something in a fanzine, or putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5, and then writing a whole article using these "facts"! There are no RS, and it's all WP:OR, and a pretty poor job of OR as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.62 ( talk) 07:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't the theory about the Monk being the Master first made popular in a manual for a DW RPG in the 80s? Does anyone know anything about this? — P Ingerson (talk) 21:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Facts from tv show: The Doctor and the "Monk" are both renegade Time Lords who stole TARDISes.
The "Monk" was NOT "stranded" anywhere. He could travel his stolen TARDIS, he just couldn't control where/when he was going.
The "Monk" was never an actual monk. It was a disguise.
The "Monk" instantly recognises the Doctor.
Facts from other media:
The novelisation of Time Meddler explitly states that the Doctor and the "Monk" knew each other before this story.
The novelisation of The War Games explicitly states that the Doctor and the "War Chief" knew each other before that story, and that they are the only two renegade Time Lords.
The novelisation of Terror of the Autons states that the Doctor and the Master knew each other before that story, that "Master" is a new name for that Time Lord, that the Master had both 'meddled' before, as well as having organised war games...and that the Doctor and the Master are the only two renegade Time Lords. Also, the Doctor is surprised that the Master has a properly functioning TARDIS.
Thenovelisation of The Doomsday Weapon explicitly states that only two TARDISes have ever been stolen, one by the Doctor, and one by the Master, that the Doctor's TARDIS is inferior, that the Master had organised the events of The War Games, and that the Doctor and the Master are the only two renegade Time Lords.
The novelisation of The Sea Devils explicitly states that the Doctor and the Master are the only two renegade Time Lords.
The novelisation of The Three Doctors explicitly states that, prior to facing Omega, the Doctor had only ever faced one other Time Lord...the Master.
Ever wonder why there was never a "Monk sequel" or "War Chief sequel" or "Master origin story"?
And remember, the Delgado UNIT years Master, then the burned Pratt/Beevers Master, then the Master stealing the bodies of Tremas (Ainley) and Bruce (Roberts) were all the same incarnation. And, of course, people like Jacobi and Simm give thier OWN interpretations of the character, playing different incarnations.
The "nonsense" is what Virgin Books and Big Finish Audios served up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 ( talk) 10:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Because, there is are at least two RS from the time stating that FACT. Written by the people closest to the source, not some fanboy website several decades after the event. The FASA Game, and the "background" section for board game Doctor Who: The Game of Time % Space. Add to that, the OBVIOUS interpretation, which is clearly NOT OR drawn from the Target novels, and only someone deliberately pushing their WP:POV would make comments such as yours.
This article takes it as plain fact that there is a character in Doctor Who who actually uses the name "The Monk" in the same way as the Doctor is "The Doctor". It then contains a rambling, largely unsourced mess, which reads like the worst kind of fan fiction. And, buried in there somewhere, under "Other appearances", it mentions 'ONEsource to the contrary. But someone just glancing at the article would never see that, and would likely give up reading it before that, due to the fact that it's very poorly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 ( talk) 19:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
In the Doctor Who role-playing game published by FASA in 1985, the Monk features as an earlier incarnation of the Master,[4] who is depicted as being his sixth incarnation which he personally chose after a failed rebellion on Gallifrey forced him to flee.[5] After the events of The Time Meddler, the game suggests that the Monk was able to replace the missing dimensional components, but a minor miscalculation sent him, and his TARDIS to a planet in the 'crack' between realities, a planet which he later named 'Merast' and used as a base of operations. It also cost him a full regeneration, however he was able to keep his current appearance.[6] After the Monk's second encounter with the First Doctor on the planet Tigus, he regenerated into a 'strikingly handsome, middle-aged man'.[5]
The Monk also appears in the New Adventures novel No Future by Paul Cornell, in which he is given the name "Mortimus". The novel was the last of a story arc published to coincide with the series' 30th anniversary in 1993, in which the Seventh Doctor encounters various alternate realities that have been created due to the Monk's meddling with time, including a reality where the Third Doctor was killed in his confrontation with the Silurians (Blood Heat), attempting to distract the Doctor while he helps the Vardans to invade Earth, thus getting their mutual revenge on the Doctor for their losses during their past confrontations with him. Although the Monk seemingly traps the Doctor on the same ice planet he was himself exiled to, thanks to the betrayal of the Doctor's companion Ace, it is revealed at the conclusion of the novel that Ace was simply pretending to side with the Monk to defeat him, the novel ending with the Monk being apparently captured by a Chronovore that he had imprisoned to help him alter time. The Monk, once again as "Mortimus", makes an appearance in the Past Doctor Adventures novel Divided Loyalties; as part of a flashback to the First Doctor's days at the Academy, Mortimus is seen as part of a group of students, taught by Borusa among others, known as the Deca, a group of activists campaigning for more intervention, alongside the Doctor, Ushas (the Rani), Koschei (the Master), Magnus (the War Chief), Drax, a spy named Vansell, Millennia, Rallon and Jelpax. He aids the Deca in learning about the Celestial Toymaker, several members of which then undertake a disastrous trip to his realm.[7] The Monk later makes a cameo appearance, as "Mortimus", in The Quantum Archangel, working alongside the Rani, Drax and The Master in an artificially created parallel universe.[8]
The television stories The Time Meddler and The Daleks' Master Plan get very brief points, but the other media gets long, rambling sections?
In particular, the whole novels and, especially, the Big Finish sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 ( talk) 12:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
A character credited as 'The Monk' appears in The Time Meddler and The Daleks' Masterplan. That's the point. So please stop trying to remove all mentions of the character. DonQuixote ( talk) 13:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes there are. The article even states as much...Same with the "monk"...
Ok, I'm done. It's obvious that you have no interest in learning about primary sources, secondary sources, etc.--you're just here to advance your fan theory. I bent over backwards to take the time to explain guidelines and policies to you, but they're just falling on deaf ears and it's getting rather tiresome. From here on, if you stray outside the guidelines I'll just point to the guidelines and policies and leave it at that. Seriously, if you can't tell what a work of nonfiction is (secondary sources), then you shouldn't be trying to write a tertiary source. DonQuixote ( talk) 07:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to try to explain this one final way, and, as I've said, I'm done trying to explain it.
Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde is an adaptation of the novel. The film does not have to have the same version of the character as the novel and vise-versa--especially if there are other adaptations (film, television, games, etc.). Similary the FASA game is an adaptation of the television programme. The game does not have to have the same version of the character as the programme and vise-versa--especially if there are other adaptations (film, games, novels, etc.). DonQuixote ( talk) 11:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
As the interviews with people who worked on the series
along with the Target novelisations
Plus, the episode The Time Meddler made clear..."monk" is just a disguise
But you are clearly showing POV preference towards one version.
@ 197.86.143.126: Leave the parenthetical comments to yourself. Unless a secondary source makes that comment, let the reader make their own connections and observations. DonQuixote ( talk) 11:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
It's part of a summary of a tv episode. If that doesn't count, then most of the article should be deleted. And, your post reads like a personal attack. Try not to be so abrasive and offensive.
Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence.That is to say, unless you can cite those interviews or behind-the-scenes books, etc., (or more than just a couple of opinion pieces--at least ten) your POV is still fringe. DonQuixote ( talk) 10:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Wrong on all counts. As usual. By the way, didn't you say that you weren't going to edit this article any more? Only for this little temper tantrum...
No, here... [10]. Or is that a totally different person?
There is nothing at all in either The Time Meddler or The Daleks Master Plan to make anyone think that the character of the Time Meddler (and NOT The Monk btw) is a Time Lord from Gallifrey.
His stolen treasures are all from Earth history. His various 'meddlings' all involve Earth history, eg. Stonehenge, Leonardo Da Vinci, a London Bank, the Battle of Hastings etc. Actually, who other than a human of British descent would even know about the long-term effects of the Battle of Stamford Bridge? Or the Battle itself, for that matter. In fact, many British people today know nothing of it.
It is also worth remembering that the Doctor of the era had one heart, and referred to himself as "a human being". Which is why the so-called "ignorant" spin-offs (World Distributors, TV Comic, Cushing movies) said the Doctor was human. In fact, the so-called "regeneration" in The Tenth Planet was 100% dependent on the technology of the TARDIS, and had nothing to do with the Doctor's physiology. He also referred to himself as "human" in Evil of the Daleks, and still had the single heart in The Wheel in Space.
It's only with Season Six that the Doctor becomes a Time Lord. (The first character identified as a Time Lord is the 'War Chief'.) And then, from that point on the Doctor is a Time Lord, and regenerations are part of his genetic make-up.
We then get Roger Delgado as the Master. And it was repeatdly stated that ONLY TWO Time Lords had ever stolen a TARDISand left Gallifrey...the Doctor and the Master. And the events of The War Games were repeatedly said to be part of the History of the Master and the Doctor. Meaning that the War Chief and the Master were unambiguously one and the same.
But, if only TWO Time Lords stole a TARDIS, then Butterworth is the Master. And this was explicitly stated in various OFFICIALLY LICENSED AND AUTHORISED spin-offs such as eg. FASA and the Board Game.
This then led to a snarky backlash, which resulted in the likes of No Future and The Book of Kells, more attempts to force "continuity" than actual stories. And today we get barrel scrapings like "Too Many Masters".
Yet, those ALL took for granted that Butterworth was playing a Time Lord. When there is NOTHING in the 65/66 stories he appeared in that even hints at that, and everything pointing to him being a human from the far future. The first actual character identified as a Time Lord was the War Chief/Master, and then the Doctor himself. And ONE dubious Lofficier book is hardly a "reliable source".
OFFICIALLY LICENSED AND AUTHORISED spin-offs--that's why all of them (FASA games, novels, Big Finish, etc.) are considered adaptations and published works in their own rights. DonQuixote ( talk) 11:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
fan mythsthat are
stitched togetherand yet, if you read the above, that's exactly what you're doing with the novelisations and the games. Seriously, all you're really doing is projecting your own behaviour onto other people. Wikipedia doesn't care about your fan theory. Period. Wikipedia only cares about documenting the different publications. And if you think that the current level of writing isn't notable, then you can start a RFC or DELETE. DonQuixote ( talk) 16:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Again, if you think that the Monk lacks notability, then you can start a RFC or DELETE. And, yeah, I agree that the actors from the spin-offs shouldn't be in the infobox, but that's my personal POV.
And you're missing the point again. The FASA game is an adaptation, just like the Big Finish productions--and they're both mentioned in Other media. And an adaptation carries far less weight than works of behind-the-scenes nonfiction. That's the point you're failing to get. DonQuixote ( talk) 19:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
And now somebody is blanket-reverting other issues.
1) The character is NEVER referred to as "the Monk" in 4-Dimensional Vistas. The article should state that.
2) The FASA Books explicitly state that the character's name is the Master, and that the Monk was just a one-off disguise. The article should state that.
3) Ditto the Board Game.
4) The "for his own amusement" is unsourced. He explicitly states in-episode in The Time Meddler WHY he's attempting to do what he's doing. And "for my own amusement" is NEVER stated.
5) There is a clear difference between what Peter Butterworth did on television, and ALL subsequent spin-off media, whether they be books, comics, audios, or anything else.
197.83.246.23 ( talk) 06:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
And a second (?) user is doing the same now. Note how there is NO explanation. NO discussion. 197.83.246.23 ( talk) 12:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok...it's quite apparent that you don't know or care to know what primary sources and secondary sources are nor what the difference between works of fiction and nonfiction are. It's quite clear that you don't know or care to know the difference between an original source material and its adaptations. Seriously, with characters like Dracula and Sherlock Holmes floating around, how can you not understand that there can be more than one version of a character in multiple media? These sources [that] also totally contradict each other
are different individual works of fiction with their own version of the characters. They don't have to agree with each other and it's not wikipedia's place to make them agree with each other. We're only here to document each publication and leave our POVs and comments to ourselves. What you want is a fan wiki or a fan page. Please go to one of those or create one of your own.
DonQuixote (
talk)
20:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)