Talk:Torchwood/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Themes

I believe that the Themes section is biased. There is too much focus on the LGBT part of the show, which while a running theme, is far less central to the show than themes like power corrupts and the value of human life. The Themes section does not convey this. In all probability the LGBT section is only so focused on because its so obvious. -Frankenstein and Dracula (the books) had LGBT themes too but no one would list those off at the top of their theme/symbolism page. [unsigned]

I agree. It's not the main message of Torchwood. Equality is only equality if people don't draw massive attention to the fact that it's there... It should be on the sidelines really, just like all relationships should be on the sidelines in a Sci-Fi television series. Mad Cheese Eater (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. It has been used in different ways in the show (humor, shock value, and to help a plot move forward), but it is not central to the shows theme. That's like saying this show has a horror theme because a few episodes have blood, gore and violence. Damn Weevils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.79.164 (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Suzie killed off

This plot point is listed quite matter-of-factly in the Cast and Crew section; should it not be spoiler-tagged or otherwise reworded? This is definitely a spoiler for the large audience of potential viewers who can't get BBC3 and are waiting for the repeat on 2, or are outside the UK... Radagast 20:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe it probably should be spoiler tagged, since it is quite an important twist. Tphi 13:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to BBC Two?

Can anyone confirm or deny that Torchwood is moving from BBC Three to BBC Two? Media Guardian story on possible move to BBC Two - registration required. Any help would be appreciated. Alex 05:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just a rundown of viewing figures for the BBC2 showing ("2.8 million viewers and attracted a 13% share between 9pm and 10.40pm"). There's nothing about a permanent move. Kelvingreen 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, what does a "move" mean? It seems like (and since I don't get digital channels I'm very pleased) the plan is/always was first broadcast on BBC3 on Sunday night, repeat showing on BBC2 on Wednesday night. Does this mean it's a BBC3 show, which is repeated on BBC2, or a BBC2 show which is previewed on BBC3 (like QI - every Friday the announcement comes up "now switch over to BBC3 if you want to watch next week's show now")? And does it matter?

Contrast Jack Dee's new sitcom, Lead Balloon, which has been shown on BBC3 for several weeks, and following its popularity has been given a BBC2 slot following Catherine Tate's new series on Thursday nights. PaulHammond 14:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The usual method when it's a "BBC2 show which is previewed on BBC3" is to have the first episode on 2, then the next week's on 3 immediatly after (like Spooks). I'd say Torchwood is a BBC3 show repeated on 2, but as you say, it doesn't really matter. ;) Kelvingreen 18:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

reading the Guardian article, it seems like too much is being read into the word "move" - the article is only about viewing figures, and the "move" to BBC2 is just to make sure we are clear on which showing's viewing figures the article is talking about. Looks like this season is always going to be BBC3 on Sunday, BBC2 repeat on Wednesday... PaulHammond 14:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Season 2 is to be exclusively aired on bbc2 according the the bbc press office statement

Willow177 13:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

BBC Two. I think it should get moved to BBC One Philip1992 16:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Philip1992

You got your wish apparently. Shame it's only 5 episodes.... Digifiend (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Fan sites

WP:EL says "If there are many fansites for the topic covered by the article, then providing a link to one major fansite (and marking the link as such) may be appropriate." We should discuss what one site is the most comprehensive and appropriate for inclusion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL is currently undergoing a rewrite. Or an edit war, depends on how you look at it. (Note the protection notice at the top of the page) I wouldn't recommend making the page compliant with that particular guideline until the dispute is resolved. -- Y|yukichigai 07:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the "torchpod" fan information "significant"? It seems to be a Yahoo group linked to a Myspace account, and is aimed at "female fans of Torchwood". Doesn't seem to be a comprehensive fan community, nor that big a group. I would think it should probably be removed - especially as no discussion per the notice in the edit text is to be found here. - Vedexent (talk) - 01:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Cast and crew

Why are we creating forks within this article? Isn't it simpler just to have a bare listing of cast and characters, pointing to the individual character articles and merging the information? Not to mention that there are some POV and speculative issues with the material here as it stands. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Because this article is a summary, and "forks" already exist in that there are article for the characters already. Either move everything here and eliminate those article, or put summaries here and migrate the information to those articles. Copying the character articles material here, duplicating information, is wasteful, and leads to "version drift" as people can update one place, or the other, but often forget to update both - Vedexent (talk) - 01:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree: what's here should be a summary of the full content at the characters' articles. We should treat the character pages as spin-outs from the main Torchwood article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's my point - in fact, we don't even need summaries. For Doctor Who it makes a bit more sense because there's one main character. For an ensemble, it's really cluttery. Look at Stargate Atlantis, for example: just a simple cast listing, with links the individual articles. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm creating the table now; then I'll look at how the information earlier added can be merged with the respective character articles. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've merged some information which to my mind is relevant and not already present to Jack Harkness (his having been around since 1960), Gwen Cooper (her personal life) and Owen Harper (his apparently skewed moral sense and his relationship with Toshiko). The other bits didn't really include stuff that was pertinent or are speculative (Ianto's character, particularly, at least until Cyberwoman airs). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I should have read your original objection better. The table idea is a good one - Vedexent (talk) - 15:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the table, which Zythe had removed as "pointless". I thought the table was a good idea, and had support here; if anyone disagrees, let's talk it over. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I had noticed that the table had gotten 'snipped' - but as I was on my way out, I didn't have time to redress it. I see the table is back. I think that objections might be made for it being a table and that the information might be incorporated into the text as prose, but Zythe had simply deleted the information; there were no longer easily found links to the character pages. I think the table works fine; I think the prose idea would work as well - but please don't remove information from the article like that. - Vedexent (talk) - 23:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Torchwood Locations Website

I am really sorry if I have offended anyone but I tried to add an external link to www.torchwoodlocations.com a filming location website but it has been removed. Can I ask why.

Thanks for your time

J cuff 11:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)James

If you check the edit log, the charge labeled against the inclusion of the link was that it constituted spam. While the site itself doesn't seem to be spam-based, it is positively loaded with banner ads. Each page seems to have Google Adsense, an Amazon box, and an Expedia banner, even if the content of the page is simply an episode index. This seems to be overkill, and leads one to suspect that the site's main purpose is to garner advertising revenue. Hence it will probably be considered Spam my many, and as Wikipedia is not a website promotion tool, the link will probably be removed. - Vedexent (talk) - 14:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Crossovers

We have a portion of this listing saying there won't be any "overt" crossovers between Doctor Who and Torchwood, but it has been revealed there WILL be with the Captain Jack Harkness character doing three episodes on "Doctor Who," playing the same character that he does on Torchwood.

The actor who portrays him says this will be the only type of crossovers planned for the two shows, but they will in fact be crossovers (see: http://www.syfyportal.com/news.php?id=3008)

SyFyMichael 05:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The 'no crossovers' announcement was always meant to mean 'no story crossovers' - nothing left dangling on one show that is resolved on another. Character crossovers are a given, at least with Jack - he's crossed over from DW to TW, and will soon cross back (and back again, if casting for Series 2 is correct). Radagast 18:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

External Links to sites

Would it be possible to add a link to my site? it did used to be linked on wikipedia but was removed for some reason, yet you have other fan-made sites listed. Why not this one?

Webmasterb 11:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia external links guideline used to say one fansite per subject was acceptable, but that requirement seems to have been dropped. I'm not sure what the current guideline for fansite links is, but I believe that the general consensus is that they should be limited to the most popular (as determined by an Alexa search). Not sure where that puts The Institute, but that should give you and others the ability to make the determination of whether to include it or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well a search like that traffic ranks it at 437,855 which puts it directly after torchwood.tv on the search results and pages before some of the other sites currently listed. But do you judge on traffic or page rankings?Webmasterb 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If that is your ranking then your website is non-notable; also read WP:COI. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine, at least I know. But how come the other sites are considered more valid then when some of them have even worse traffic/page rankings than The Institute? There doesn't seem to be any continuity in the way your rules are applied and it;s ever so confusing. Webmasterb 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; Some users just appear and stick a link in, most users just ignore them, I however have just purged it of links and do try to revert additions of links when I see them, I've left one external link (Which to my knowledge is apprently the most visited TW website - Its my opinion it shoudl go as well..) per WP:EL. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Random Eugene?

The BBC website now gives the title of Invisible Eugene as Random Shoes Here, as does the Radio Times, but Press Office report still calls it Invisible Eugene. Should the pages be updated to reflect this, or not? Laïka 18:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here in America, my program guide calls it Invisible Eugene, but BBC America calls it Random Shoes. How odd. Doc Strange (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Year

I've reverted the following, added by 81.101.30.176:

based on a comment Owen Harper said in Greeks Bearing Gifts it was confirmed that the series was set in 2009.

There was no reference specifically given for it, although if it's correct and there's a proper reference it would be great to have confirmation of the year the series is set in. Wibbble 14:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think they mean the bit where Tosh claims the skeleton has been buried 196 years, 11 months, which, assuming the 1812 prologue took place after January, would put the episode in 2009. However, as Tosh says, the earth has been disturbed, and she can't be more accurate. Laïka 18:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Which seems very funny to me, since she precisely knew it was 196 years and 11 months. If it isn't accurate to know in a period of two hundred years in which month it happened... well, then anything isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.128.246.208 (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is precise, but may not be accurate. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In "To The Last Man", Tommy was first frozen by Torchwood in 1918. Jack says that makes him 24 or 114 years old. So he was born in 1894 if his birthday passed before freezing, 1893 if it didn't. According to the math, this episode takes place in 2008 at the latest (1894+114=2008). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.79.164 (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC) In Adrift I'm sure I saw the year 2009 on the missing people folders. 86.137.178.250 (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference 27

Is broken, it's missing a title, I'd fix it myself but I don't know what the article titles should be... also if it is two articles are being referenced here shouldn't we use two instances of the cite template and not one? --GracieLizzie 16:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Timeline Screwup!

So, we know that the events of Torchwood take place after "The Christmas Invasion" which took place in 2006. That would make these adventures take place in 2007 (concurrent with DW's 'present'). Unfortunately, "Out of Time" really helped to screw that up. Friday the 29th was mentioned in the episode and Gwen wishes a "Merry Christmas" near the end of the story. December 2006 has a Friday the 29th in it and the only Friday the 29th it might be in 2007 would be in June. The Christmas reference helps to throw this story into complete contradiction with the rest of the Whoniverse. The Core-Man 02:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We also know that it takes place after the Battle of Canary Wharf, which if we take Jackie's remark in Doomsday that Pete died 20 years before, plus the seeming lapse of time between The Christmas Invasion and New Earth and between New Earth and Army of Ghosts (the ghost phenomenon has been going on for a few months, and Rose hasn't been around for longer, as evidenced in Love & Monsters), means that it must take place at the very least in 2007. Greeks Bearing Gifts places itself in and around 2008 or 2009 thanks to Tosh's estimated dating of the transporter as having been in the ground nearly 97 years (from 1812), so we could conceivably fudge it as being 2007-2008. The "Friday December 29", therefore, must either be ignored, or we have to speculate that the days of the week in the Doctor Who universe are different (perhaps the Gregorian calendar started on a different day, despite the same date). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Also remember that the Torchwood website, although not strictly canon, uses 2007 consistantly as the date. Laïka 14:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In one episode, Harkness says he has been at Torchwood Three for three years, and that implies an overlap with the Boom Town episode that would have had him in Cardiff twice at the same time (and would have had Torchwood's team not doing anything about the rift activity right above them.) The only resolution is surely that Torchwood is years after Boom Town - 29th April 2007

It is quite plausible that Torchwood overlaps with Boom Town. Harkness knows that the Doctor sorts the rift problems. He's going to keep Torchwood out of it so they don't change history, and will himself run no risk of bumping into his earlier self.Gwinva 06:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who season 3 is in 2008, making at least part of Torchwood in the same year. Ophois 01:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Regular characters

I think we should consider removing Indira Varma form the cast list in the infobox, as she is no more of a star than Kai Owen, who played Rhys - he is not in the infobox, but he has appeared in more episodes. She also only appears in the opening titles during everything changes, whereas everyone else on the list is credited in the opening titles Willow177 13:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought that Gwen Cooper was second in command and not Owen Harper (though he may be second in seniority). At the end of "Everything Changes," Jack Harkness tells Gwen "we have a job opening" and something about "needing a second in command" (not exact quotes); in "They Keep Killing Suzie," Suzie Costello tells Gwen "you've replaced me ... my job ... in every way" (not exact quote). Let me know what you guys think about making the change. Michaelpremsrirat 04:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Doctor Who}} - inclusion?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#.7B.7BDoctor_Who.7D.7D_-_inclusion.3F

End of Days ending

Yes, we know that Jack has hopped into the Tardis and yes we know that John Barrowman will be in the next DW series but for accuracy we need to avoid saying "Jack returns to travelling with the Tenth Doctor" until we next see him. 81.145.240.234 23:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"into the TARDIS"? No. "onto" is more like it: Spoiler 207.202.227.125 02:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Transmission time

"with all subsequent episodes shown at 10 p.m. every Sunday evening" IIRC one episode went out at 9:30. Rich Farmbrough, 17:31 7 January 2007 (GMT).

Article Lacking Criticism

The article reads abit more like a fanboi page in places then an encyclopedic article. The internet is rife with reviews and opinions {some professional that would qualify as a reference here, some not} that either illustrated some of the negative points of the show or flat out trashed the series. Yet unlike other wikipedia media show/movie articles that attempt to show all sides and take a neutral viewpoint by listing criticism as well as compliments, this article takes a strong bias in its opinions and reviews. While I don't think the show is terrible, nor do I think it is so great it should somehow be edited here to the point of excluding some of the negative views that have come of it. If this is to be an encyclopedic reference, some of those views need to be added, likely under a section on the article labled "criticism" or "critique" or some such. [Monday, 2007-02-05 T 12:03 UTC]

Um have you read the Reception > Reviews section? It cites plenty of negative reviews, and I think is very balanced unlike the Russell T Davies page which is too over-negative if you ask me. --GracieLizzie 13:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"fanboi"? With an "i"? well, ain't you hip Avril... --198.6.46.11 16:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Critisism Re: Censorship

The official timetable allotment for Torchwood is 50 minutes on BBC3. However, on BBC2 and on the DVD release, the time is 45 minutes. Presumably, this is for an American audience and a younger audience to the BBC2 showing. I cannot understand though, why the DVD release is also Censored equally.

As i am not proficient in the ways of wikipedia could someone make an amendment to the main article on Torchwood mentioning this as it is an important point given the controversial nature of the issues this program brings into question. Given that the BBC is supposed to be autonomous from the government, though government funded, it feels the need to censor not just its programs, but also its DVDs, for which rating and duration are presumably not an issue. The only possible reason for this would be to broaden the audience for the DVD sales. For a government organisation, this would seem amoral as it should not be about profit, but serving the public.

Despite this, I admire the way that the BBC has approached sensitive subjects and brought them to the fore. Even if in a rather blunt manner. Possibly this is to rival the success of Sugar Rush, recently aired on Chanel 4. (We don't get blunter than Cpt. Jack Harkness)

Time allotment for BBC 3: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/tvlistings/index.shtml?day=today&service_id=4288 Running time for five episode on DVD: http://www.hmv.co.uk/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=285;5;-1;-1&sku=567169 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naznomarn (talk • contribs) 22:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Was any material actually removed from the BBC2 versions of the episodes? IIRC, the ad break intervals following the show were simply longer on BBC3 - for example, they incorporated a 60 second news bulletin. --Kwekubo 01:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The simple answer is yes, material was cut. I have recording lengths for several episodes, all of which are significantly greater than 45 mins (not including advert breaks or the news bulletins BBC 3 are so fond of): 49:14 ep 9; 49:39 ep 10; 47:49 ep11; 48:11 ep 12. This includes an introduction at the start, which may not be shown on BBC 2, however this is only 30 seconds. If needed I can dredge up the running times of all 13 episodes, however I have archived these. Also, BBC is government funded. All programs come whole without interval. Except for the 60 Second News on the subsidiary channels. Naznomarn 8 January 2007

Has anyone compared the two runs side-by-side to see what material was cut? After all, one can cut for content, to remove things inappropriate for a different viewing audience; or one can cut for time, removing scenes less necessary to the plot in order to fit it in less time. Radagast 19:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You may want to consider the possibility that, at least for the DVD release, the various stores selling it made an incorrect assumption that the episodes would run 45 minutes each. 50 minutes is, after all, a somewhat unusual runtime for most television shows. -- Y|yukichigai 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Time-frozen Comment

Someone added a comment about the "Captain Jack Harkness" episode. I haven't seen the episode yet and can't comment on the factual accuracy. However the comment contradicts the rest of the sentence, so a cleanup would be required. Also, square brackets are really not the way to do this in a wiki. I think this was supposed to be a standard parenthetical comment, which would use standard round parentheses. (Shift-9, Shift-0), but I'm not completely sure what the intent was. Avt tor 19:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Doctor Who story connections"

This section is too listy and looks out of place, dragging down the whole article. Can it be removed, and a paragraph mentioning the shared universe-ness of the series added instead? You don't see the Angel (TV series) article listing all its Buffy connections across a hundred and something episodes.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. Be bold and write that paragraph. DonQuixote 00:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Chattiness

I'll be chipping away at the excessive verbiage in Torchwood. It's not at all encyclopedic. Lexein 03:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

ABC pass

Can an Aussie Wikipedia with access to TV Week Magazine add some (correctly cited) info on this news,[1] and mention the earlier reports to the contrary (one of which is already cited in the article). --GracieLizzie 12:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? --GracieLizzie 16:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I cut most of that discussion because I don't see it as "noteable" or current now that Network 10 has been running the show for weeks. Ronstew 06:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Delays, Problems?

According to (an e-mail to) Torchwood.tv Elisabeth Sladen says The Sarah Jane Adventures has had it's production pushed back due to "problems" with Torchwood.[2] Unfortunately, as good as they are, Torchwood.tv is a blog so I think it doesn't pass RS, (actually I think I'll have to remove a cite from the SJA because of that) is there anyway to get this report to a level of verifiability? Can it be submitted to OG or something? --GracieLizzie 20:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Series 2 Details

More and more Torchwood Series 2 details are coming through by the week and there isnt a set place within the article for placing this new information. I can't see any suitable place to slot it in apart from maybe in a new section on the List of Torchwood episodes. This months new DWM (#380) confirms that the show is returning in January 2008 with the entire cast returning, and episodes are being written by Russell T Davies (1 episode), PJ Hammond (1 episode), Cath Tregenna (2 episodes), Helen Raynor (1 episode) and Chris Chibnall (3 episodes) who remains head writer for the series. Clockwork Apricot 19:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So create a new subsection for "Series Two Announcements" and put relevant sourced comments there. Avt tor 03:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Torchwood Books

The following was removed from the Torchwood page, but I reverted it:

In the novel Another Life, Jack is quick to comment on how easy it will be to cover up the death of a homeless youth, as he will not be missed, much to Gwen's disgust.

With the comment, Value of human life - Should really keep this as an article about the TV series

It raises a valid point - I personally feel that this article is about Torchwood as a whole, not just the TV series. However, I can certainly see that others might disagree. The books are I think included in the canon. mattbuck 15:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

With the length of the article already a concern, perhaps the spin-off section could go onto a separate page and expand the details of the books within it? --The Missing Hour 15:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the line. Typically, when you look at other TV shows, we don't describe them based on what we know from spin-off media. For example, the Buffyverse project has numerous articles about Buffy books and comics, keeping them separate. We already have Doctor Who spin-offs too. Anyway, the line I removed didn't really contribute to the rest of the paragraph, which was about showing how Torchwood deals with questions like "Who deserves to die? Who decides this?"

I don't know where we'd split the Torchwood article. I already cut out all the silly "Doctor Who connections" which are covered in other places. I suppose a section like Themes in Torchwood (Thematic motifs of Lost) and Criticism of Torchwood (Criticism of Family Guy). Lost (FA), Buffy (FA), Angel (ex-GA) and Futurama (GA) are good examples of what this page could look like. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism of Torchwood" article

Two thoughts on this... one, the title should be changed to something other than "criticism" for NPOV. Secondly, does the content really warrant an entire article? "Criticism" sections are already magnets for pro- and anti-show sentiments on Wikipedia; perhaps it should be folded back into the main article. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not overly keen on it my self, "Reception of Torchwood" may be better. Matthew 17:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think (and this may controversial) that this doesn't really need it own section and it can be put in under one of the other sections. The doctor who wiki page doesn't have a section for this, instead it has under History in a section called "Public consciousness" this would be a better name as well.--Wiggstar69 17:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The main article was too long so I split it off. Isn't criticism a neutral word, anyway?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism is a neutral word, though it can either mean analyzing/evaluating something or to pass judgement on something. Most people think of it as the latter so perhaps it should be changed due to the negative connotations many people have with the word? Anwenx 17:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

Trivia section and the Critisism and Themes section is too short even with sub-pages. WikiNew 21:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There should be no trivia section at all. Matthew 21:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think its pointless, give people the facts in other ways but not through a trivia section.--Wiggstar69 22:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Torchwood rocks!

I myself am a bisexual and think that the sexual themes in the hit spin off Torchwood is important. It's a grown up Doctor Who, This is what makes BBC addictive.

This is not a forum, it's for improvement of the articleIllyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 18:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivial Trivia?

• "There is at least one literary reference, ranging from W. B. Yeats to the Bible, in every Torchwood episode."

Has this been specificaly mentioned by the production team, and even so is it important enough to include? There are probably many literary references, even ones the writers haven't picked up on (do you neccesarily think of Hamlet everytime you say 'to sleep perchance to dream'?), in every television programme. --Neo 18:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I removed that before :-\, none the less Exterminate! it. Matthew 18:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure someone keeps editing it back in. I agree it's a bit pointless, most TV shows have literary references in. It's hardly a point of interest. Anwenx 17:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Australian Release?

I just saw an advertisement on channel 10 implying that the show in coming to that channel. In quotes, it said something like "Captain Jack Harkness is coming to 10". Can someone else find some more evendence supporting this, as I would of exspected it to be released on ABC (channel 2), the channel Doctor Who is broadcasted on.

OG news from about 2 moths ago HTH Stephenb (Talk) 16:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation on an edit to a subject heading by Tony Sidaway

I changed the words "International broadcast" to "Overseas broadcasts" in the heading of a section listing broadcasts and planned broadcasts of the series in countries other than the UK. The reasoning for this is that the word "international" is ambiguous, having the usual sense "between nations". The broadcasts themselves are each actually intended to take place in individual countries, and the more usual, and more precise, term to use here is "Overseas". Matthew has reverted, and that's fine as it's not a very important point. However I still think the use of the word "international" here is very sloppy. --Tony Sidaway 13:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree, in contrast I believe "oversea" to be sloppy just as you find "international" to be sloppy. "International" is the standard on television articles, and as I stated in my summary: International: "'International' is also commonly used to signify 'outside of the country'". Matthew 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed the term being misused in Wikipedia to denote broadcasts and sales of TV and film "outside the country", true. This isn't a common meaning of the word in my experience, but it may be that the meaning is drifting or that film or television jargon (which has adopted that usage) has infected the English language. Not a big deal, as long as the reader understands. --Tony Sidaway 14:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Anogram Anagram

You know i noticed that the word torchwood is actually an anogram of Doctor who, i dont know if this should be mentioned in the article though - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.223.117 (talk)

To quote the article

Overview: The title "Torchwood" is an anagram of "Doctor Who". The name was used as the "codename" for the new series of Doctor Who while filming its first few episodes and on the 'rushes' tapes to ensure they were not intercepted.

Neo 08:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

North American broadcast rights

The current text states: "The Canadian network CBC is co-producer of the series, with exclusive rights to broadcast the North American premiere of the show."[19]

Is there anything official to back this statement up?

Footnote [19] refers to an article (http://www.c21media.net/news/detail.asp?area=4&article=29877) that makes no such claim. The official BBC press release (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/worldwidestories/pressreleases/2006/04_april/mip_torchwood.shtml) also makes no reference exclusive North American Broadcast rights.

I can find no official information anywhere that states that the CBC has any rights outside of Canada.

Soldeed 15:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

North America includes Canada. North America =/= the US. Thus, if it is "the North American premiere", Canada counts. Kirkburn 15:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That needs to be fixed. GreenJoe 16:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The current TV Guide on sale says (it's a science fiction preview edition[The one I have has Hiro for Heros on the cover]) that Torchwood will premier on BBC America on September 8 at 9PM.Metropod 17:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference to HDNet purchasing 26 episodes may be correct. TEN Australia bought this package after the sales fair in February 2007. MartinSFSA 17:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Torchwood set in 2008?

I read somewhere in this article that torchwood was set in 2007, i.e. it was set a year before it was broadcast, but in the episode Greeks Bearing Gifts it starts the show off with a clip set in Cardiff 1812 in which a person is murdered and then they show a clip of the torchwood crew finding the body and stating it had been there for 196 years and 11 to 11.5 months, so surely that would set torchwod in late 2008 or early 2009, wouldnt it?

Tosh does say the soil was disturbed, so she can't be accurate. Will ^(talk)

Season 3 of Doctor Who is set in 2008, so at least part of Torchwood is. Ophois 01:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Torchwood had an episode set at Christmas, and the Battle of Canary Wharf (which happened in a DW episode set in 2007) was already known about. So 2008 sounds right, at least for the last dfew episodes (the ones shown in 2007 - both shows are set one year after the real date). Digifiend 13:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ten Australia schedule

Network Ten Australia ran seriously overtime once (July 30) and announced the following day that they were moving the broadcast time to midnight Tuesday. Their press release cites overall declining ratigs due to rival programming. The Big brother finale could not have been a factor as the decision was already made. MartinSFSA 15:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Cast image

I've added the series two cast image. I feel it is more suitable than the other as Suzie is not coming back according to Julie Gardner, however if the consensus is that the series 1 one is better then so be it. I'll admit perhaps I have been hasty. --GracieLizzie 20:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Two images seems overkill in light of the rules on minimal use of non-free content. I'm not fussed as to which, mind. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 20:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've left the old one up so others can decide which one they'd prefer to keep. --GracieLizzie 20:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There seems to have been no objection to the removal of the old image; as it's now orphaned, it's up for deletion. Speak now or forever hold your peace... Radagast 11:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Reception in Australia

I've removed a recently added (unsourced) section which seemed to represent POV of the editor. However, if it is the case that Torchwood is dying a death in Oz, a paragraph sentence to that effect might not go amiss if we can source it (eg. media commentary, not something appearing on a fan forum). --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Torchwood in Latin America

Someone recently added that the series began broadcasting in Brazil on Sept 4. That's been amended to Aug 28 because Ben Elliott's TORCHWOOD THIS WEEK states the Latin American broadcasts start on that date.[3] However, a Latin American source I've found[4] (translation) appears to be saying the series started September 4. Can anyone relieve my confusion?

For the record, the IP who put it in is located in Brazil, according to the WHOIS. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

DVD releases

Do we have a source for the Series 1 DVD as November 19, 2007? StuartDD ( t • c ) 19:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've added it. — Edokter • Talk • 20:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, just checking. StuartDD ( t • c ) 20:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Series Two Premiere

As far as I know, BBC has not yet given a premiere date, but BBC America has announced the series premiere in the US for Series two. One source[5] says "BBC America has confirmed that the "Doctor Who" spinoff series will be back on Jan. 26 – just a few weeks after the series returns to television in the United Kingdom." I have included the US premiere on the first paragraph, mainly because no UK premiere date has been set, but also because of the close proximity in time. Cary Bass ^demandez 15:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an edit war on this issue. The date must be announced soon, but until then it's not verifiable. It may be enough for the tabloids to fun with the current rumour, but their hit rate is appalling. MartinSFSA (talk) 08:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The date has been confirmed by the press (NOT the tabloids) and several of the actors on their official websites, etc. I appear in the first episode and this information has been confirmed to be by RTD personally, and in addition thre are multiple Wiki-accepted sources. There is no "rule" on Wikipedia stating the only source acceptable is te BBC itself, please do not invent rules that do not exist. In addition Torchwood appears in some advanced televison listings for that date and time. If you guys continue to delete cited information without even having the courtesy of writing anything in the edit box then we WILL continue to revert you, that is considered vandalism. 81.1.76.146 (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The only "confirmations" I have come accross are either fan-forums like Outpost Gallifrey and fan sites like freemaagyeman.com, which are not official in any way. The only reliable source will be the BBC, and they have not released anything regarding the series premiere. All the dates you see in the press are pure speculation (mostly with regards to the freed up timeslot due to the Heroes season finale). Go read WP:RS (reliable sources) and WP:3RR (3-revert rule), which are very real policies here on Wikipedia; if you break them (especially 3RR), you will be blocked. If, however, you do have a verifiably source which can be traced back to the BBC, then cite it (or post the link here). — Edokter • Talk • 16:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The BBC Press Release gave the start date as the week beginning January 11 (posted on your talk page by somene else ages ago). The date is also confirmed by the press and by the actors. Your assumption that their announcements are speculative and not based on BBC confirmation is in itself pure speculation. There is no Wiki rule stating the network a TV show airs on is the only official source. I have been an editor here for many years so please don't threaten me. Please remember the 3-revert rule works both ways. 81.1.76.146 (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is hard evidence that specifically states the series begins on January 16th, we cannot post it here. The schedule is due to be released by the BBC coming friday, until then, the article has been semi-protected. — Edokter • Talk • 17:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether it counts as a reliable source or not I don't know, but the latest update to DigiGuide lists Torchwood as returning on Wednesday 16th January 2008 at 9pm. This does seem an expected date as Torchwood when on BBC 2 was always shown on a Wednesday, and it is the slot they now have freed up from the end of Heroes season one. As far as I know DigiGuide tends to get it's information officially, not from rumour/fan websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.206.129 (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless DigiGuide cannot state their source, it remains unverifyable. Even yesterday, the BBC aired the Torchwood trailer stating "Coming soon"; no date! The more reliable sources also hold that the BBC has confirmed nothing yet. Also, the BBC doesn't release "secret" news to some trustedaffiliates; if they have something to say, they always release the news on the BBC press site. So far, all sources stating Jan 16 are all baseless predidctions and wishfull thinking. Trust me: If the BBC is ready to release the date, they will be the first to tell us. — Edokter • Talk • 17:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

DigiGuide gets their information from the broadcasters Stuart runs our listings processes and assists Ian in editing the schedule information that we receive from broadcasters.[6] Plain and simple the BBC Presentation department buggered up on this occasion forgetting that the Press dept provide the schedule to the likes of Digiguide before their planned date of revelation . Garda40 (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

January 16

Please do not add this untill it has been confirmed by the BBC. Repeated adding of unsourced information will result in the article being fully protected. Thank you. — Edokter • Talk • 17:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: Do NOT add UNSOURCED information. IMDB is NOT considered reliable. PLEASE wait a couple of days; The BBC will release next years schedule next friday. — Edokter • Talk • 17:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Having just spent a while trawling through BBC press releases, the most they have said is "Mid-January". If this page needs full protection until Friday, I will support such a move. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the press-release give the week, though? I think it does give "third week of January", or 15-21th. Will ^(talk) 18:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Best I can find is "mid-January"; but I think it can probably wait until an official announcement on Friday? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The week may have been confirmed, but not the exact date; it could be wednesday or sunday, judging from this post on Yahoo. — Edokter • Talk • 18:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen anything official, but it seems churlish to refuse to allow any mention of this at all. I mean, the date has been reported in the press and some of the cast are talking about it, and everyone knows that's the start date; people will be coming to Wikipedia looking for that information. Perhaps a compromise? How about something like: "It has been reported (widely reported?) to start January 16, but the date has not been officially confirmed by the BBC" or "It will premiere sometime in mid January, reportedly on the 16th, although this is not confirmed by the BBC." That way there is nothing that is unconfirmed or improperly cited, and makes clear the status of the date is not official, but still gives people the most up to date info they are looking for. Also, if the week has been confirmed, why the objection to putting that instead of the vaguer "mid-month"? Queer Scout (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The forms of wording you use are called "weasel words", but would still require a source rather than a rumour. Basic policies require that anything is reliably sourced. Surely it's no great hardship to wait a few days? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[remove indent] On a purely theoretical basis, could one not report that a given, well respected, web-site had stated that the series were to start on date XX (not that I propose such should be added to the article, I agree that its such a minor point that it can easily be left out until the end of the week). --Neo (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the reliability of the website, and apart from well-known unreliable sources such as YouTube, Facebook, IMDb or almost any blogging site, would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. But even so, all we would be saying is that "this website says this", which isn't very encyclopedic, because what it says may not be correct in any event and doesn't advance the argument. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Rhys Williams

Why is Gwen's boyfriend Rhys listed as being "really Scott Peterson". What does that mean?? It needs clarification. It also states that he "raped a little girl while high on Pugnac". What episode was that in?? Please clarify! Thanks :) VWScully (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)VW Scully

You saw a vandalised version which has now been reverted. Shit happens, even on Wikipedia, but at least it's short-lived. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Even on Wikipedia?? Surely you meant especially on Wikipedia?? :) --D^EADLY∀_SSASSIN 20:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadlyAssassin (talk • contribs)

Trailer with Date

A Trailer with a certain date has now been shown on BBC3 and BBC1 .Garda40 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we cite this to satisfy WP:V? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now seen it myself on BBC2 at 10pm and can confirm that it does contain a date .Garda40 (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain it exists. However, how do we reference it here? {{cite episode}} doesn't seem to fit, there's no press release or URL, and anything else would be original research. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And for the sake of asking... what would that date be? — Edokter • Talk • 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A date that will only be reverted if it is mentioned since it has no "sources" .Garda40 (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Any date that cannot be confirmed will be reverted, but not on the talk page... — Edokter • Talk • 23:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That is, reliable sources per WP:V and WP:Reliable sources. As soon as there's a BBC press release (and it is being watched), it can go in. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The confirmation posted is nothing of the sort since it is just Outpost Gallifrey reporting what posters have reported on a forum (which is not an acceptable source ) and Outpost Gallifrey which according to discussion on this page isn't acceptable The only "confirmations" I have come across are either fan-forums like Outpost Gallifrey and fan sites like freemaagyeman.com, which are not official in any way. The only reliable source will be the BBC, and they have not released anything regarding the series premiere and also As soon as there's a BBC press release (and it is being watched), it can go in which was posted after the trailer was reported .There has been no BBC release release yet and since the other sources can't be accepted why was the date added .Garda40 (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

<outdent
But that is a valid secondary source, per policy, and is a valid citation for the trailers, as I see it. Now can we have a break until the 16th? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The BBC does not tend to update the Week Program Info pages, so we would have to wait for the listings to come out. Trailers with secondary sources is good enough for me at this point. We'll add another ref when the listing are released (Watch the Radio Times). — Edokter • Talk • 02:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RadioTimes.com is now showing the date and time: The 16th at 9pm on BBC2 (as expected) [7] Stephenb (Talk) 08:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The trailer was an adequate source, as an official public announcement by the BBC. Date and time of broadcast of the trailer would be adequate reference. Anybody wanting to verify it could just phone the BBC for confirmation. There are no long-term ramifications of this (the scheduled broadcast date, when announced in the trailer, was just a fortnight away). --Tony Sidaway 00:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Cooper

Article has been edited by an anon IP to make Gwen "second in command". I haven't seen the first episode yet (mea culpa), but I find this hard to believe. Can somebody source this or revert, please? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwen has indeed been leading the team in Jack's absence. But since it now seems to be a dynamic position, I would take it out. — Edokter • Talk • 16:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could get that speedy a promotion! I'll take it out for now, since Capt Jack is back.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue she never was second in command per se. Rather, she deputized for him, there was a slight power struggle when he returned, and now she's in a stronger, but still subordinate position. Drmargi (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Post-watershed?

The article uses the term "post-watershed" several times. The WP article on "watershed" defines it as the 'adult' portion of the schedule running from 9pm to 6am. So, the term "post-watershed" seems redundant ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.244.152 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would actually say that the WP article on "watershed" is then wrong, because in my mind a watershed is a point in time, rather than an interval. I've always heard references to "the watershed" as being either before it or after it, thus establishing the concept in my mind as a point instead of an interval. Very good point, I think I'm going to make some reserach into what exactly the watershed means, but as far as I know, the "post-watershed" (time, period, programming, whatever) lasts from 21.00 to 06.00. Mind you, this is UK only, as this varies greatly from country to country. In much of continental Europe, the legally defined watershed is at 22.00 and morning programming begins at 06.00 or 07.00. George Adam Horváth (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Which Doctor Who seasons are being referenced?

As someone who hasn't seen any of the Doctor Who serieses/seasons, I've no idea which ones are being referenced in this article. Particularly useful would be clarifying that the current incarnation of the show is the one being spoken about (if true). My complaint/confusion is just that Doctor Who has been around so damn long, and as a non-fan, I logically assume that the current remake of the show is different from the original, and thus don't know which one Torchwood came from. (And no, I don't want to have to follow a wiki link to Doctor Who to learn more about it, it should be more clear in this article!) I guess you could consider my complaint to be that this article is too full of self-referential info, that an outsider has difficulty understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.36.251 (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You see, the problem is, the creators of the series imagined this as a spin-off with a slightly more adult theme, but basically for Doctor Who fans. In short: Doctor Who is a family viewing programme, Torchwood is for Mummy and Daddy only. Who, in turn, have spent their childhood watching Doctor Who. Probably. Now, to my knowledge, there is no clear guide, and it's exactly for the reason above. However, as a keen Doctor Who and Torchwood fan, I can tell you that there has been no reference made to any series shot before the one starting in 2005. Little concilation, I know, but all that I can suggest is a) you watch Doctor Who and be enlightened, or b) if you have any questions in particular, I'm quite happy to help you. George Adam Horváth (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Bisexuality-related television series

The category "Bisexuality-related television series" was removed. So are we arguing that Torchwood is not bisexuality-related?Andral (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just passing and this made me laugh... It's an SF TV drama, not a study of sexuality. It contains elements of bisexuality, but then so has EastEnders and Grange Hill. Stephenb (Talk) 19:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Three out of five main characters are bisexual...one of the others is debatable...about half the aliens in the show are bisexual, including a recurring villain. RTD himself has talked about how the character's sexualities are intended to remain fluid. It's not as if it's incidental. Why not remove the lgbt-related category too? If bisexuality fits into lgbt, we should also remove the 'doctor who spin-off' label, since that fits into 'television spin-off'. Andral (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "related" is OK. It clearly has bisexuality-related themes but is not exclusively so. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course. It's not exclusively anything. Andral (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The bisexuality is an element of two characters (I would dispute the third, since we have evidence of only one, brief relationship) and confined to characterization rather than being a thematic element. Any generalized labeling smacks of homophobia to me. --Drmargi (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'd say it's fair to call Tosh's bisexuality debatable, as long as her her heterosexuality is also debatable. Andral (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the cat because the show isn't bisexuality-related. There have been no episodes about their bisexuality, no one has "come out", no one has even mentioned the word, have they? There are bi/omni-sexual characters, and their sexuality obviously plays a part in each character, but to call the show "bisexuality-related" is a stretch. The characters should be (and have been) placed in categories, but the show is a drama-sci/fi-adventure flick - it certainly touches on sexuality, but that's not an overarching theme. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and furthermore, no one has provided a reference that says anything about the show itself being "bisexuality-related". -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with you, I'm confused: you haven't removed the cat as you said... Stephenb (Talk) 14:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I did, but it was put back, and that's what sparked this discussion :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cast removal

Why have Owen and Tosh and their corresponding actors been removed from the cast list? They were still part of the main cast and have not technically left it yet as they have been in every singe episode so far. They could be noted as deceased characters or as only being in series 1-2, but not completely removed from the list NIKKKIN (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

They've been put back by someone, someone removed them thinking the wrong idea. Jammy (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's usual not to remove cast-members who are no longer portrayed unless to do so would be silly (e.g. in Coronation Street). We've had this trouble in Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as I thought, if you remove them after they leave the show, what good is wikipedia as a reference for older cast membersNIKKKIN (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to remember this is shown all over the world, and what is true in the UK isn't true elsewhere. Why do we need the to either a) remove Owen/Tosh given they still represent current cast and b) note their deaths? We don't even know Owen is dead-and-gone for sure, as Burn Gorman noted in the Torchwood Declassified for Episode 13. Adding status, a notation deceased or removing them represents original work to some degree, for lack of a better way to describe it, and certainly is a recentism. I can see doing this once we know Torchwood has been renewed, we have definitive knowledge of Owen's status and there are casting changes that replace these characters. But until then, I think we should leave things as they are. --Drmargi (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As its a British show. It's wikipedia article should reflect its British status. Just like the 24 (TV Series) article reflects its status in America. They don't care whether its gets 'spoiled' for us brits. So why should we care if Torchwood gets spoiled for anyone else. Wikipedia is not a place for spoiler protection. Once the shows had its original broadcast. It's Wikipedia article should be edited to reflect it's current status. If Owen comes back, we can edit him back into the article! Thanks TheProf - T / C 17:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also no reason whatsoever to include this information here; it should, and is, already in the final episode's article. Since series 3 isn't even commisioned yet, stating their status as deceased is simply illogical. When the show picks up again, then we can update their status. — Edokter • Talk • 18:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The article should not reflect the "current status" of the show, but should describe the entire history of the program. Deceased, alive, learning to play the marimba - all irrelevant. People reading a description of the program should be able to glean a synopsis of the program's entire history, not just its' current state; that they can get by just watching the current episode. Taking characters out when they die, and back when they come back is not indicative of the show's entire history.

At best, one can put "killed in episode such-and-such" if one absolutely has to, under the individual character description. Tv.com does something similar to this by listing characters by the seasons they are present; eg, "Joe Green (Seasons 1-3)" without reference to why the character entered, or exited the program. This can be listed under individual character descriptions. Given that we don't know if either of the "apparently deceased" (or redeceased in the case of Owen), is actually leaving the show, we can't say "seasons 1-2" - they could be back next season for some reason or other (hey, it is science fiction). -- Vedexent (talk) - 18:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the problems of having a freely-editable medium. People think that because it CAN reflect a current situation, therefore it SHOULD. A quick look at WP:MOS#FICT will show that this is a fallacy, and we are writing an encyclopedia rather than a blog or a newspaper. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to TheProf07, I very pointedly avoided making this a spoiler issue. That's an almost unmanageable issue. That said, all through the article, you note this is being shown on the BBC and BBCAmerica more or less concurrently. Regardless of the origins of the show, the entries should reflect the show's status on the two networks, US and UK, broadcasting the show. What the 24 gang does has no bearing here.

More compelling still are the arguments regarding the history of the show, and the need to avoid point-in-time references to Tosh and Owen. I'd also reiterate, given Gorman's comments, that we do not know Owen's status. I'm not sure deceased is quite the correct adjective in any case. --Drmargi (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, i'd like to thank everyone who responded to the points i made in my message. Secondly, although i agree with some and disagree with others. As always i will comply with the consensus of the majority. Therefor, i will not re-edit my view back into the article. Again, thanks! TheProf - T / C 20:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cooper or Williams?

Since Gwen is now married to Rhys. Should she now be called Gwen Williams? Or maybe Gwen Cooper-Williams? -- Thoughts? - TheProf - T / C 23:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends if she's taken his name or not. Many women retain their unmarried surnames for professional reasons. I suggest we go by the programme credits, and if they don't specify, we shouldn't assume she's now "Gwen Williams". --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

She has continued to use the name Cooper, and remains credited as such. So it should not change. — Edokter • Talk • 23:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We've never heard definitively that she's using Williams, and in this day-and-age we can't assume as much. I'd agree, it needs to remain Cooper until we hear otherwise. --Drmargi (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

She used 'Cooper' post-wedding onscreen at least once (in 'Adrift'?), so I would say to stick with that. Radagast (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Radio 4 Play?

Apparently the latest issue of Torchwood Magazine makes mention of an exclusive Torchwood radio play written by Joeseph Lidster for Radio 4 - I don't have the issue to hand - If anyone does and can confirm, should this be added to the article? Etron81 (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Can I ask why my edit was reverted and what was though to be controversial. Thanks WL (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see why, either. Certainly there was no information lost that I can see, and the change from Welsh to UK was entirely correct! Stephenb (Talk) 07:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I changed UK to Welsh. On actor/actress pages, it usually describes them as being Welsh/English/Scottish etc. rather than British so I don't see why TV programmes shouldn't follow suit. It's entirely filmed and produced in Wales and by a Welsh producer. WL (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I don't follow. "Zulu" was a British film made in Africa by a British company but is not described as an African film. Why should Torchwood be described as "Welsh", with all due respect to Wales? Actors and actresses (e.g Sean Connery) are described as having the nationality of their constituent nations of the UK if they strongly identify with that nation (this is in WP:MOS); I don't think it follows that television programmes should do the same. "British programme made in Wales" would be closer to the mark, in my view, although it's made plain in the article itself. --Rodhullandemu 13:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't personally think that there is a logical reason for using "Wales". Perhaps if it was a show developed for a local Welsh station, but this is nothing or the sort. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

BBC is a British company, maybe the programme is set in Wales and produced by BBC Wales but that doesn't stop the whole programme from being British. So it should remain as United Kingdom and not Welsh. Jammy (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I see I misread the diff! Yes, UK is completely correct here Stephenb (Talk) 20:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case I'll undo the revert but reinstate British. WL (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Season 3

Why has all mention of Season 3 been deleted? If you need sources for the fact it's been officially confirmed:

John Barrowman confirmed there will be a season 3 during his appearance on the TV show "Ready Steady Cook" and on other TV shows. RTD confirmed there will be a season 3 and discussed it in some detail in "Attitude Magazine." The latest issue of "Doctor Who Magazine" states that scripts for several Torchwood season 3 episodes have already been written and are being worked on at the Upper Boat studios. Eve Myles confirmed season 3 on her offical website and in print. Gareth David-Llord and Kai Owen have discussed season 3 in print, including revealing the filming dates. I can give the urls and details of the press articles if needed? 81.1.81.81 (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have URLs, please post them here, them we can use those as references. Without those, we cannot put that information in as it would be unverifiable; that is why it was removed. — Edokter • Talk • 14:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Offline sources are perfectly viable Edokter, as long as propertly cited. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Julie Gardener interview confirming various details about S3. [8]

Eve Myles official website statement. [9]

John Barrowman mentioned it on TV show "Ready Steady Cook," 6th May 2008 episode.

Doctor Who Magazine, issue 396, June 2008, "Notes from the Producer" section (written by RTD). "On the other side of the building (Upper Boat), we've got the latest Torchwood scripts about to arrive, with the new producer settling in and cracking the whip. Like I said it's all go."

Attitude Magazine, May 2008 issue, interview with Russell D Davies: "Attitude: Season two of Torchwood has been so much darker than season one. What's in store for season 3, and will it be crossing over more with Doctor Who? RTD: No, we won't be crossing over more. We've got the balance right I think. Torchwood is coming back. Hmm...what am I allowed to say? You will have seen the horrific events at the end of Season Two by the time this comes out. It's terrible, tragic and changes everything and we got it right. Having said that, there is a big change ahead, a big big format change. Same show, but completely revamped. I just can't say yet. It's ridiculously huge in America, but not bigger than Doctor Who as people keep saying. They are livid with us for making the changes. We'll do what we want!" Queer Scout (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think those sources, especially the MySpace page of Eve Myles and the DWM, are perfectly fine for including that there will be a third season. Someone should re-add it into the article. --SoWhy ^Talk 12:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that would make sense, Tosh and Owen need to be replaced, but I wouldn't be surprised if Doctor Who 4.12 and Journey's End reveal something - Jack will appear, and Gwen and Ianto are rumoured too. Digifiend (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood post-2009

With RTD leaving Doctor Who in 2009, has there been any word on what will happen to Torchwood? Is Steven Moffat taking over the spin-offs too? Will Julie Gardner take the reigns on her own? Or is Davies only leaving the parent programme? Surely other people have asked this question in the last few weeks and have got an answer. U-Mos (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether the answers they've got are from reliable sources and are verifiable. Consensus seems to be that we wait for such sources to appear- and in this case, that would seem to be the BBC. --Rodhullandemu 15:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course they should be reliable, but I haven't seen or heard anything concerning TW's long-term future. Could a line be added saying it is unknown what will happen when RTD quits DW? U-Mos (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It could, but it would convey zero information. You might just as well say of the Eiffel Tower "it is unknown whether the Tower will ever fall down". A comment that RTD is leaving DW/TW is as much as we know. --Rodhullandemu 18:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So he is leaving Torchwood? U-Mos (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. That's the issue, we can only put in to the article what can be reliably sourced. --Rodhullandemu 18:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. U-Mos (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

External Links?

Rather than diving in and adding an Eternal link to a Torchwood related website, could anyone please advise what criteria a website would need to meet in order to be considered a valuable website to be listed in the external links section please? The site I am referring to is http://www.TorchwoodForum.co.uk which is averaging over 43,000 unique visitors a month, is the top search engine result for the query "torchwood forum" in most major search engines and is a very active Torchwood community with over 2175 registered members. Thanks in advance... TorchwoodForum (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines are at Wikipedia:External links. Forums are not usually allowed. Stephenb (Talk) 12:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood series 3: Children of Earth

Children of Earth has its own article (qv!). --TS 23:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It should probably be worth noting that it was originally slotted to come back with two seasons, then overshot it's deadline for release, then turned to one season per BBC, now is a five episode mini series.

IMHO one of BBC's best up and coming long term serials is turning into vaporware. 122.107.25.23 (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Series 3:COE is confirmed and will be airing at some point this year should we include it in the no. of series and no. of episodes? I mean it hasn't been aired yet but it has it's own wiki page and is fully confirmed and in post-production so should we add it and it's episodes to the tally?--CharlotteMarshall (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, episodes don't get totaled until they air. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The BBC's Torchwood site now says Summer, rather than Spring. (Which, since it's already May, isn't a huge surprise). I've adjusted the article to suit. Daibhid C (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The events of COE should be covered or mentioned, at least briefly, under "Episosdes" David (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)