Talk:List of Torchwood creatures and aliens

Infoboxes
Why is the Doctor Who villain box used? Torchwood is a series in it's own right, shouldn't it have an infobox? Or at least the infobox should be changed to "Whoniverse" instead of "Doctor Who"... Trampik e y (talk to me)(contribs) 17:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It did have "Whoniverse" at one point. Don't know why it was changed back though... anyway, changed back again to "Whoniverse race". ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ...Which has since been reverted. Oh well... ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 12:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe Torchwood should have its own infoboxes separate from the Doctor Who ones... — AnemoneProj e ctors (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Forget I said that :) — AnemoneProj e ctors (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 81.145.241.216
To give an explanation for why I'm reverting these edits.


 * "the only reason he gave for following this tradition was that "it made me happy." The real reason behind the tradition is never given."
 * This is superfluous: "the only reason" is sufficient; we don't know that it's not the real reason.


 * "Called "fairies" by mankind, Jack Harkness notes that these demonic creatures do not actually have a name."
 * Not established anywhere that these creatures are demons.


 * "They also have nigh-omnipotent control of the elements, able to create sudden gales or rainstorms and direct them with pinpoint accuracy. It is also said that they could "turn the world to ice" and it is implied that they caused the Ice Age."
 * "nigh-omnipotent" is a term never used, and is exaggerated. I do not believe that it is implied they caused the Ice Age, and the verbatim quote is unneeded.


 * "(apparently a beautiful nineteenth century prostitute)"
 * POV adjective and unnecessary.


 * "Her greatest weapon however is her sexual power with which she seduced Toshiko Sato."
 * POV, her sexuality and seduction of Toshiko is not established anywhere as a "power". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was the fella who was making the edits and please permit me to explain my reasons. I didn't say the fairies were demons I just said they were demonic which means demon-like. Demonic is used to the same effect as monstrous. Just because something or someone is monstrous does not make them a monster. As for their nigh-omnipotent control of the elements they are portrayed as extremely powerful and I just wanted to convey that. Turn the world to ice sounds more effective than just freeze the world over and it is the term used by the fairie leader. I do believe he (or rather "it") says "We could turn the world to ice again." My memory might be a little rusty. Also it is not implied that they could freeze the world, it is stated.

On the subject of my description of Mary as beautiful and your description of my description as a POV I would like to say the following ; what's a POV?

I actually attributed her seduction of Toshiko Sato as sexual power which is different from power as 'behold my POWER', it just means the ability to use your sexiness to your advantage and for all her abilities that is probably her greatest although a "probably" should really be in their.

Anon


 * POV means point of view - here we try to keep the language as neutral as possible without inserting our own opinions into the mix. Demonic, nigh-omnipotent and beautiful as adjectives convey specific types of "spin" (and demonic in particular passes a particular kind of judgement over those actions, plus given the supernatural nature of the fairies would slant the mind towards a more literal meaning) which are not needed. "Demonic" is actually mentioned below as an adjective, but it's attributed to a particular source and made clear as such, which complies with the policy of no original research.


 * At best, you could say that Mary "seduced" Tosh instead of "manipulated" her, but again, characterising sexuality as a "power" particularly in a science fictional context has larger implications which could be misconstrued.


 * And it's Jasmine who says: "If they want to, they can make great storms, wild seas, turn the world to ice, kill every living thing. Is that what you want?" No "again" is involved. "Turn the world to ice" is also likely not literal but means to freeze the world (more or less the same thing), but at best, one could use the verbatim phrasing. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Like I said the memory's a little rusty. You're probably right about the "power" thing and the "demonic" thing. I know "turn the world to ice" means freeze the world over but again you're right that some people could take it rather literally. But it is still stated rather than implied. Oh and on the subject of the Cannibal Villagers, Huw's reason for following the tradition is "'cause it made me happy" but when I said the real reason behind the tradition is never given I meant the historical origin of the tradition but perhaps I should have been more specific. Finally might I add that in the context of the programme Mary is considered extremely beautiful (at least by Tosh) but I suppose some strange people might argue otherwise. And would you class my description of the fairy creatures' power as nigh-omnipotent as an opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.240.229 (talk • contribs).


 * I would class "nigh-omnipotent" as an exaggeration — omnipotence is a pretty loaded word, and while the fairies' control of the weather is certainly powerful, to say "nigh-omnipotent" is a trifle hyperbolic. As for the cannibals, the additional sentence is superfluous because the entry already says "the only reason"; there's nothing to indicate that's not the real reason (the historical tradition may have started because it made the cannibals happy, too). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right I suppose, on both those notes. However would you mind if I made the following alteration?:

"It is stated* that they could freeze the world and it is possible that they caused the Ice Age."


 * As opposed to "implied."

That's all.

Anon


 * I have a problem with the Ice Age bit because it's stated nowhere as such that I recall. In any case, the current version already quotes the freeze the world over bit verbatim. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * True, it is never stated as such. Yes I was thinking of leaving in the freeze the world over bit but changing "implied" to "stated" adding it that is is possible that they caused the Ice Age. After all if they can freeze the world over who's to say they haven't done it before?

Anon


 * It may be, but without any evidence to support such an implication it's original research and speculative. Best to leave it as it is at the moment and let the reader draw their own conclusions. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose. We should still change "implied" to "stated" though, wouldn't you agree?

Anon

Cannibal Infobox
Why don't we have a cannibal infobox? It seems slightly messy without one. Or else they should go into the Minor Characters list, seeing as they aren't technically monsters or aliens. Clockwork Apricot 14:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree on this: On the Doctor Who m&a list, it is specified that the list "includes some beings which are not extraterrestrial, but are nonetheless non-human", andI don't see why the Torchwood m&a list should be any different. ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We discussed this on the minor characters talk page and it was said they should go here because humans can be monsterous too. --GracieLizzie 17:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Book stuff
Should it really be included on this page? It just kind of confuses everything. I mean, it's non-canon - we don't include any the Doctor Who books' stuff on those lists.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The books aren't non-canon for a start. And it's a lot easier to start a full Torchwood list than it is for Doctor Who pages. The Doctor Who pages are incredibly inconsistent with their inclusions and which monsters have information. Everything from published Torchwood work should be included i.e. nothing from the website which is temperamental about when it has stuff deleted, but other than that, everything should be included. Clockwork Apricot (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TorchwoodFairy.jpg
Image:TorchwoodFairy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Replacement of images
WP:NFCC has been cited as justification for removing all the images on this page without regard for detailed consideration of the merits of each image in relation to its accompanying text and relation to that policy. The images should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and it's not as if the whole page is littered with them, after all. I have examined the FURs, and they all have one, or will get one, for this page. To attempt to describe Abaddon or Mary, for example, in text alone is ludicrous and will strain the patience of our readers if we even try. I will go though the images we have and make a reasoned decision on each of them, and assistance would be useful. -- Rodhull andemu  23:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, they all now have defensible fair-use rationales for this page and comply separately and collectively with WP:NFCC. The only image I've removed is of Mary the Alien in human form, because, simply, there is little to describe that can't be done in text, and probably doesn't need to be anyway. Most people know what a 19th century prostitute looked like, although I myself am a little too young for that. Could do with better images of the "fairies" in both benign and malign forms, however, to illustrate the dichotomy between their appearances. -- Rodhull andemu  00:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Non-free content is not allowed in list of.. pages. The reason for this is if the character is notable they should have their own article, if they are not notable why should they have a image?. the one exception to this rule is that one or two group shots are allowed. βcommand 03:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you point out where this gloss on policy is set out? WP:NFCC is utterly silent on the issues of lists and notability. Thanks. -- Rodhull andemu  12:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto - instead of edit-warring your point of view across, please state where in the NFCC policy it states that fair-use images cannot be used in lists. Talk Islander 13:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy

 * WP:NFCC is a permissive policy with limitations; it is not a restrictive policy with permissions. Accordingly it should be interpreted to fulfill its permissive purpose rather than its limiting aspect. Thus if doubt arises as to the interpretation of policy, that doubt should be resolved in favour of the permissive purpose. This is classical policy analysis, although I'm no longer employed in that capacity.


 * WP:NFCC Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.
 * In this case, images are ONLY used when words are insufficient to convey the appearance of the character. Anyone who thinks different is invited to write such a description, email it to me, and I will pass it on to an artist friend of mine, who has never watched Torchwood and the I will scan and post his interpretation here so that editors can assess how successful those words have been. Multiple items- each character has only one image, and only needs one, so that point does not arise. It's not as if, as I have pointed out, that the article is strewn with images,and, indeed, I have removed one that could not reasonably satisfy this criterion.


 * WP:NFCC Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function
 * Per my argument above, words are insufficient to describe these characters. Would its omission be detrimental to the reader's understanding? In my view,, again, that any attempt to describe these characters in words would be inaccurate and therefore misleading.


 * Use of non-free images in lists.
 * I have been referred to previous discussions on this point. All the examples given in those discussions are of lists of television programme episodes. The distinction to be drawn is that it is impossible to encapsulate a 30- 50-minute episode in one image; and, of course, in these lists, almost all the episodes had images. That is not the case here. In the examples I have seen of "Lists of Character" articles, those articles were liberally strewn with images, making an arguable case for breach of "minimal use", although personally I believe that one image per character is not excessive.


 * Use of provocative edit summaries threatening blocking is unhelpful while the application of policy to a particular case is under discussion; it might be thought to be WP:UNCIVIL. It's certainly not WP:AGF -- Rodhull andemu  13:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that enforcing WP:NFCC is exempt from WP:3RR. For the issue about NFCC in lists please see Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use. further Violation of the non-free content policy will result in a block. please stop ignoring foundation level policy. βcommand 22:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Foundation level policy is to allow fair-use images within certain limitations. Those limitations in relation to this article have been addressed. You have not countered them beyond citing a discussion which addressed different issues. This is unacceptable. Either deal in detail with this article or don't. It makes little difference to me. -- Rodhull andemu  22:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The foundation's policy is that the projects must have policy with at least a particular level of strictness. Enwp's policy is conformant (and, in some regards, exceeds the foundation's minimums). Betacommand's edit warring and aggressive behavior is unjustified and unacceptable regardless of how correct he is, but it does appear that the standing policy and practice supports his position with respect to List of articles. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The "standing policy" is not a policy; it is a consensus. Practice likewise. Although policies are intended to be broad statements of principle, applied with some measure of common sense, this is not happening because we are being given little indication of where the boundaries lie. As I've seen time and time again, this is unhelpful because it leads to exactly this sort of situation. But, again, it's a permissive, not a restrictive policy, and should be construed with that intent in mind, i.e. purposively and enabling rather than disabling. If previous discussions have missed that, it's not my fault. -- Rodhull andemu  02:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely, there's at least some guidance at WP:NFC.

In this case it is not possible to find "group" shots, that show multiple of the items at once. And, by their nature, most of the items are exactly elements which "cannot be described easily in text" -- certainly not to give as good an understanding of their realisation, in what is after all a definitively visual medium.

Therefore my view is that these images do comply with NFCC #8 and NFCC #1, and are justified. In fact, more images may be justifiable. Jheald (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Blowfish
Should we mention that behind-the-scenes, the blowfish alien is called "Hootie", after Hootie and the Blowfish? Daibhid C (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of non-free images on this article
This article has been identified as containing an excessive quantity of non-free content. Per the Foundation's requirement to keep non-free media use minimal, and per Non-free content criteria #3, the non-free images on this article have been removed. Please note: If this is a list type article, please read the WP:NFLISTS guideline. If you wish to dispute this removal, it may be helpful to read WP:OVERUSE, as it answers a number of typical questions and responses to removals such as this. If after reading these, you still feel there is grounds for restoration of most or all of the media that have been removed, please post to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. ΔT The only constant 01:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The presence of a fair use rationale for this article on an image description page does not make it acceptable for a given use.
 * Blanket restoration of the non-free images that have been removed can and most likely will be reverted, with subsequent reporting action possible.
 * If some restoration is desired, careful consideration of exactly what non-free media to use must be made, paying special attention to WP:NFCC #1 and #8. In most cases non-free media needs to be tied directly to the prose of the article, most preferably with inline citations tying the discussion to secondary sources regarding the image per Verifiability.
 * Done, and reverted per the guideline page recommendation to limit use to major characters, which this apparently satisfies. The above templated threat, by the way, is an assertion of personal opinion and not Wikipedia rules. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)