Talk:Peter Pratt

Pratt illness and departure

The current edit says:

He suffered an illness in the spring of 1959, and his last appearance with the company was on May 31 1959.

A recent editor removed the reference to Pratt's illness, and changed the date of his final appearance to May 30. The change to May 30 seems to be correct, as May 31st was a Sunday, and the D'Oyly Carte didn't perform on Sundays.

But Rollins & Witts show Pratt as absent during March and April, which is consistent with the statement that he suffered an illness. The recent editor did not sign his or her name, but perhaps the person can return to this talk page and explain the reason for the edit. Marc Shepherd 01:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A Dance to the Music of Time

It should certainly be noted that one of Pratt's most memorable performances was as the hapless Kenneth Widmerpool in the BBC's radio adaptation of "A Dance to the Music of Time" by Anthony Powell. This adaptation was broadcast over a period of a few years and I don't have the precise dates. But anyone who has heard it will agree that Pratt perfectly captured Powell's conception of Widmerpool. -- 74.96.75.23 (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It says here that he played Le Bas, not Wodmerpool, in two of the broadcasts. Apparently this was rather a minor role. Could you be confusing two different actors? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No Infobox, please

This article should not have an infobox, because all of the important points that could be mentioned in an infobox, like Pratt's dates and occupation, are mentioned very clearly and more accurately in the article's WP:LEAD. The box is repetitive and does not emphasize the most important information, as the narrative LEAD section does so well. Also, the box limits the size of the first photo, which is a good photo, and takes up valuable space near the top of the article. I also think that starting the article with the infobox template discourages new editors from editing the article. It would distract editors from focusing on the content of the article; instead of improving the article, they spend lots of time working on this cosmetic feature and its extensive coding and formatting, not to mention the frequent errors that creep into infoboxes. Also, none of the Gilbert and Sullivan-related articles have infoboxes, so omitting an infobox gives articles related to Gilbert and Sullivan a consistent design. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Pratt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926234403/http://www.hostultra.com/~daisybtoes/Koko2.html to http://www.hostultra.com/~daisybtoes/Koko2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090329084553/https://www.gsarchive.net/iolanthe/doc_prod/doc_iol.html to https://www.gsarchive.net/iolanthe/doc_prod/doc_iol.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Not the second Master...

https://screenrant.com/doctor-who-master-missy-actors-cast/ 197.87.143.164 (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

And interesting take, as (technically) he is playing the first Master in disguise, not actually the second Master. So Prat was the second MAster, not just the second actor to play him. So it may need rewording to say "played the second master". Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

And when I said "played the second version of the Master", you reverted it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.143.164 (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Because you were edit warring. You should have waited until you had consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Here you do not say anything about changing your wording (indeed you say he was not the second master, he was). Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The incorrect version says he was the second actor to play the Master, which is a) a lie, b) not what the actual RS says. I see someone is obsessed with this, even though the RS used(Number 16) doesn't actually say that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.143.164 (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

You still need to discuss that change, as your first version was also not wholly correct. Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Now you have gotten your way, so continued discussion seems pointless. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Who got whose way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.143.164 (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, IP, for finally coming to the Talk page to explain why you kept making that WP:EDIT WARring reversion. Please sign your talk page messages by adding four tildes, like this: ~~~~. That will automatically add your signature and the date stamp to them. What you should do, when you have a change to make in an entry, is to correct the *text* discussion before making a corresponding change to the Lead section, and to include an edit summary that explains to other editors why you are making the change. Then, per WP:BRD, if another edit reverts you, come to the Talk page immediately to discuss what changes you propose. Then, wait for agreement or WP:CONSENSUS before making the change again. That is how Wikipedia works. You will also be taken more seriously by other editors here if you register an account. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Literally listed in the cited source as the second actor chronologically:

Master No. One - Roger Delgado (1971-73)

Master No. Two - Peter Pratt (1976) and Geoffrey Beevers (1981)

Master No. Three - Anthony Ainley (1981-1989)

Master No. Four - Eric Roberts (1996)

Master No. Five - Sir Derek Jacobi (2007)

Master No. Six - John Simm (2007)

DonQuixote (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you are trying to be helpful, Don Q, but if you look again, this is not a list of all the actors who played the Doctor, but rather a list of each actor who first played each *version* of the Doctor (it does not, for example, say who played him from 1974-1975?). I also removed tangential info about Delgado. The list of people who *regularly* played the Doctor is at Doctor Who#Changes of appearance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless you can cite a reliable source that shows that this list is incomplete, these are all the actors that have played the Master up till 2007. DonQuixote (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that was not what I meant to post. Trying again: If you look again at the source we cite, it literally says that this is a list of each *version* of the Master. This article indicates that Norman Stanley played the Master after Delgado but before Pratt (during the 3rd Doctor, between 1971 and 1974). In any case, I had also removed tangential info about Delgado, which should be removed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia article. Minor trivia like that isn't notable in-and-of-itself. There's other actors who have played the character in disguise as well as stunt doubles and is just fancruft. Unless the Encyclopaedia Britannica starts listing stunt doubles et al. when listing actors who have played [notable character (such as James Bond)], it's inappropriate for Wikipedia. DonQuixote (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

But stunt doubles are not credited as actors. Norman Stanley is credited onscreen as an actor. Hence, why Pratt is the second version. And "the source we use" is ONE single source. The source I linked to is one source. Why should one take preference over the other? There are literally RS stating that Pratt is NOT the second actor to play the role. But, there is one that says that he is. But that is used as the sole source. Saying that Peter Pratt was the second actor to play the Master is simply not true...Also, to the other fellow, I didn't "finally come to the Talk page to discuss the edit". I did so at the start. By linking to a RS stating that Pratt was NOT the second actor to play the Master. But, he did play the second version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.143.164 (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Norman Stanley does indeed appear to have played the Master as a body double for Roger in one of the Master's disguises. But he did not play a different Master. So the question becomes, how do we handle that? It seems to me the new text addresses that. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC) To add to the confusion, the IP is wrong, in the episode credits there is only one credit for The Master (Roger) Norman Stanley is credited as Telephone engineer. Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Context matters. Reputable sources just list Rebecca Romijn and Jennifer Lawrence as having played Mystique in the films, even though the character has disguised herself as other characters. General readers understand that this is the context when talking about things like this. DonQuixote (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

My point is that in context the BBC do not seem to have ever listed Stanley as The Master, this seems to be other people deciding he was (much like the War Lord or The Monk). More fan wank then fact. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Is the ref that we are using, this BBC "fact file" the best ref for this? Also, why is it of encyclopedic importance, anyhow, that he was the "second" actor to play this character. When we say that someone played James Bond, do we have to say he was the 5th actor to do so? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. It's factually correct within context for a general encyclopaedia. It's already mentioned, and there's no reason to remove it. It's also probably notable for the first two or three actors in the sequence.

Also, see George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan. DonQuixote (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you, and I thank you for providing your analysis of it. You do not need to insult me, though. I was just asking a question. But I still want to know if the BBC ref is the best one for this information? The web page looks so amateurish, I didn't even realize it was BBC at first glance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Doctor Who: A Celebration by Peter Haining. Chapter 9: The Two Regenerations of the Master outlines the history of the character up to 1983. DonQuixote (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)