Talk:Torchwood/Archive 1

The plants?
Not sure how or if to work this in, but "Torchwood" is also an informal name for several species of plants. Since there's no Wikipedia entry, there's no point having the usual italicised clarification text at the top; I was thinking of adding a paragraph at the end like this:


 * "Torchwood" is also an informal name for any of a number of species of trees and shrubs found in the Americas, so called because their high resin content makes them burn very well. The meaning of the phrase in the context of the programme is unknown.

Anyone have thoughts about this? -- Guybrush 05:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, just found that Torchwood is referenced at Burseraceae, the family to which most torchwood species belong. I'll add an italicised note at the top referring to that. -- Guybrush 05:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The wood should be the primary link. I've moved this article accordingly - David Gerard 10:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Er, no I haven't, that note actually looks ok! I'll leave it for now, but if someone else wants to sort out what should go where then feel free - David Gerard 10:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * On the extra bbc websites, visittorchwood.com, it states that the building (original seen in episode Tooth and CLaw) was/is made of wood from Florida - with translation being Torchwood.Crescent 19:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Image
I've added a picture of Jack. I've gone with an older one, as the one at Jack Harkness is very TARDIS-centric; this is more neutral, as we don't precisely know how the character will join the new show format. Radagast 19:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Stub?
Is this really still a stub? It is long enough not to be especially since all known information on the subject is here and there clearly is a platoon of editors waiting to expand if there is a new development. --Oli 18:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I've never been part of a platoon before. I wonder what the collective noun for Wikipedians is?  A collaboration of Wikipedians?  A consensus?  A revision? Actually, I like that one: a revision of Wikipedians. —Josiah Rowe 23:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * An Anorak of Wikipedians? :-) Angmering 00:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * An obsessive-compulsion of Wikipedians?—Josiah Rowe 01:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You almost had it. A reversion of Wikipedians. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Get the men fallen in, Wilson! 213.48.182.7 18:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Judging from the definition of a stub, I agree with Oli; it's not particularly short, it's well integrated with other wiki articles, and all the information provided is the vast majority of what's currently known about the topic. Kermix 00:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well it hasn't been a stub since shortly after Oli posted. —Josiah Rowe 02:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Links
What gives user "DanielCD" the right to remove people's links here? I have added a number of links many times including to several fan pages (Unit News, Outpost Gallifrey, Kasterborous) and the official Doctor Who website which are all covering Torchwood? Instead this user removes them and puts up a link only to a tongue-in-cheek Torchwood blog. Why are actual news pages covering the news of Torchwood not allowed but a silly blog is? What gives DanielCD the right to decide whose links go here???


 * To quote our official policy here:

Please do not add commercial links &mdash; or links to your own private websites &mdash; to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.


 * That's what gives DanielCD the right to revert your edits. Also, most of your edits appear to be just removing sections of the article, rather than adding things. That won't do either. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

REPLY: I did not create a link to any commercial website or any private website, none of them are my own sites, I merely added links to places that were covering NEWS OF THIS TORCHWOOD SERIES. You didnt answer my question, why are you allowing a link to someone's personal website blog but not allowing links to 4 websites that are not personal sites but are ACTUALLY COVERING TORCHWOOD NEWS?


 * You are removing the categories, not just the blog link. If that's a problem, give good reasons why, please. Don't just delete tha cats because they belong there. --DanielCD 17:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

REPLY: Why did you remove all the links I posted two weeks ago and again last week and again over the weekend and again a couple days ago? I posted 4 or 5 relevant links to sites carrying news of Torchwood because it was of interest and it was not advertising anybody. I have no vested interest in any of these websites all I wanted to do was contrbute additional information and you and others removed these links and left a personal Torchwood blog, if you read it you will see it is not as relevant as any of the news sites covering the show.


 * I'll look at it and at the past stuff. --DanielCD 17:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The Dr. Who links were removed because they are already listed at that article and are not directly relevant. The blog has remained as it pertains directly to the article. The blog doesn't seem to be a problem to me. People can always just go to the Dr. Who article and find the other links there. --DanielCD 17:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the need to keep links from taking over an article, I think that it wouldn't hurt to have a few links to sites with Torchwood-specific news, such as the Torchwood section of Outpost Gallifrey's news page, or UNIT News's Torchwood page. This is different from putting the same links on every Doctor Who-related page; although Torchwood is a Doctor Who spin-off, it will presumably develop its own identity and fanbase. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Charlotte Church
Even if Charlotte Church were to appear in Torchwood, it would not be her TV acting debut as she had an acting role in an episode of Heartbeat. --Bonalaw 13:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

ahhhhhhhhhhhhh
This looks so cool. Cap'n Harkness is hawt. :) -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  05:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Eve Myles
I was a bit nervous about adding the Eve Myles info as the BBC have taken down their news article. However, it was grabbed by Google News and you can read enough of it (and see a photo) to consider that there is a valid source. Once the BBC announce the story properly, it can become a proper reference to the BBC site. &mdash;Whouk (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey presto! Radagast 02:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Gwen Cooper?
How soon should the character get an article? We now know name, actress, description, there's a picture... Radagast 13:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I would hesitate greatly as the amount of information is minimal. At best, I would say Gwen Cooper should, for the moment, redirect to Torchwood. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and created a redirect, which should do for the time being. Angmering 17:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite a few quotes have been collected concerning Gwen, so I have started a page for this character now. I expect it will expand rapidly in a few weeks when broadcasts start. Hope that's ok. Rnt20 09:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that looks good; we're now just months away from broadcast, as well, so it's more timely than my original proposal.
 * One thing to do would be to trim out the quotes from the main article, and link prominently to the new one. Radagast 17:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Links, footnotes and references
I've converted the in-line links to footnotes. We may also want to move some of the existing references to footnotes — if anyone wants to take that on, feel free. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I integrated some more, and done a big copyedit at the same time. I've left four references as I wasn't sure what in the article was sourced from which. We could do with full references for the various DWM reports mentioned too. &mdash;Wh o uk (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Episode format
While it's accepted practice for the Doctor Who WikiProject to use italics for Doctor Who episode names, is there any reason - apart from it being a spin-off, obviously :-) - to continue you that here? I'm not making a proposal one way or the other (although I'm leaning towards the standard, inverted commas format) but I think it's worth discussing. &mdash;Wh o uk (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I don't suppose it really makes much difference how its done here. Might be best to follow the accepted Wikipedia practice, I suppose. Angmering 18:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As no-one has dissented, I've changed the format of the title "Flotsam and Jetsam" to the 'pedia standard. Feel free to chip in here if you object. &mdash;Wh o uk (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Mini-series?
The introduction describes the show as "a 13-part British television science fiction and crime drama." That gives me the impression that it's intended as a one-shot mini-series, with no intention of continuing after the first run of shows. Is this correct? If not, we should probably remove the "13-part" out of the intro. -- MisterHand 20:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the one 13-part series has been commissioned, but that the door is open to more if it's successful. (I think this is standard for UK series.)  I'll rephrase the opening so that it doesn't suggest that the door is closed to another series. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I also wouldn't call a 13-part series 'mini'. Especially when it comes to British TV. Radagast 21:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Episode articles
Just a pointer that I've questioned the need for separate episode articles in a message at Talk:Flotsam and Jetsam (Torchwood). &mdash;Wh o  uk (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The great famous Torchwood Institute
I've been bold and I created about the Torchwood Institute as a whole following the events of Tooth and Claw, and loosely on Bad Wolf and TCI. Feedback would be appreciated.  Will  ( E @ )  T  18:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed:
Removed this: "* Although no crossovers with its parent series are planned, Barrowman reported on his website that the story of Torchwood would be "seeded" in the Christmas special and 2006 season of Doctor Who. "

It has now been established as fact and is covered elsewhere in the entry. I don't think the fact Barrowman mentioned that on his site is still of interest. Damiancorrigan 14:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the "seeded in the 2006 season" is now redundant, but I wonder if it might be possible to find a place for the information that Torchwood proper doesn't intend any Doctor Who crossovers. (Although with two of the cast playing characters they played on Doctor Who, I suppose that "No Doctor Who crossovers" just means "we won't see the Doctor, Rose, Mickey or Jackie".) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

BBC3 or BBC1?
John Barrowman's website suggests that Torchwood is "**Now moved to BBC 1**" under the "FALL 2006 - CAPTAIN JACK IS BACK" heading on the news page. I've not seen any other reference to this, so I'm not entirely comfortable adding it to the Torchwood entry here... unless any other (clearer) sources for this move exist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.216.218 (talk • contribs) 13:55, May 8, 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just removed a reference to BBC1 airing from the article a few days ago. Although Barrowman's website may well be correct, I think it would be better for us to be cautious.  We might be able to say something like "John Barrowman's website has reported that the programme will be aired on BBC1; this has not yet been confirmed by any other source," though.  Other thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely BBC3, i saw it on the TV guide.Andy mci 18:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Episode titles
A few sites have "Dark Revelations" as the second episode and "Small Worlds" as the third - anyone have a trustworthy source for these titles? &mdash;Wh o uk (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Torchwood Archive"
I have no idea if this is a legit edit or vandalism. I saw nothing of the "Torchwood Archive" in the episode's TARDISODE or anywhere in the episode. Googling it gives no results, it would at least be mentioned somewhere if it was a real reference. So I've reverted it myself and asked for further proof. — Natha  n  (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (That was my IP) It's ok, I understand why you did it :) It was in-direct quote from a reviewer at the Outpost Gallifrey forum. The poster is a member of the press and regularly recieves preview DVDs of further episodes and posts spoiler-light reviews with little teasers. I merely put what he said into a readable sentence. I'm not sure whether the above is a good enough reason to add it back so I'll let you decide :) Ood   talk  22:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure somewhere in the episode they say they are part of the Torchwood Archive. 84.64.85.235 11:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, they did. However, this article is about the Torchwood television series, not about every mention of the word "Torchwood" in Doctor Who, so the catalogue of "Torchwood" references have been moved to Torchwood Institute, as I mentioned in the edit summaries.  See the page history, and the hidden text I added to that section for this very reason. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How covert is Torchwood???
Just an observation - it seems strange that a Prime Minister of the early 21st Century is "not supposed to know about" Torchwood, yet an ordinary 1953 police officer is clearly well aware of the existance of the organisation... quercus robur 07:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what makes for good fanwank! I can pull an explanation out of my... hat: In 1953, Torchwood was not as covert as it is today. Something happened between then and 2006 to make it go deeper underground, so that it's not supposed to exist anymore, although it still does. That may also be why Torchwood didn't do anything about the Third Doctor in the 1970s/80s. After the Christmas Invasion and it having blasted the aliens out of sky, it's fallen back into favour, hence the more overt mentions (like "Torchwood Access Denied" in School Reunion). There. Sorted. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The Impossible Planet
I hardly think the 'a torch would do it' reference is actually legitamite. Unless we leave a note pointing that out as it's clearly not a reference to the Torchwood Institute itself. Phil 19:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure now, given the distinct reference in The Satan Pit, and assuming it's still the "One mention per story" method...The_B 01:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, not quite, Rise of the Cybermen had two mentions. :) Phil 23:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr Who Episodes
The individual references should be listed either at Torchwood or at Torchwood Institute but not both. And if this article is about more than the spinoff series then the two articles should be merged. --Henrygb 09:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Episode list: table?
I noticed that the folks over at WikiProject List of Television Episodes have come up with a standard format for episode lists. Should we implement it? It would be something like this:

Once we have plot info we can put a brief summary in the "shortSummary" field; I've put a placeholder sentence under "Flotsam and Jetsam" to show the format.

The template can also be adjusted to include screenshots, once these are available (and if we decide we want them).

Do we like? Is there a colour that's better for the line breaks? Opinions are welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really like the idea of having a list like this before we have all the episode names. On the colour front, try #999933 . smurrayinch e  ster( User ), ( Talk ) 19:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's an updated version, with what we know so far: I see your point about not using the table until we have episode names, but it might be an easy way to record the director/writer information that's currently in slightly ungainly prose. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wonder
Wonder if The Doctor will appear in any cameo roles in this series - It's somethhing they're bound to do. James Random 09:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Spank My Bum & Call Me Nancy

Fear Her
I've added the reference that Huw Edwards mentions "Torchwood" in the episode, which I believe he does (just after Chloe's line "And they will never feel alone EVER again" and before a cut to Rose and Chloe's mum) but can anyone decipher the sentence leading up to it? To my ears it sounds like "from the battles to the Torchwood", but it's very, very muffled. So, this might be like the rather clever "a torch would do it" line (which I firmly believe was deliberate!) or it might be a real reference. Stephenb (Talk) 20:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It was shown as a reference on confidential, whereas the "torch would" reference wasn't. This leads me to believe it is a real reference. And the "battles [of?] Torchwood" may well be the Daleks versus Cybermen of AoG and Dd. Which means that this is potentially how Torchwood get found out. Clockwork Apricot 19:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Logo
The logo in the article's box is the mockup we got way back on first announcement; it's clearly based on the DW logo, so there's no way it's anything close to the final version.

This was posted on the BBC's site today, to tie into Army of Ghosts; would it work as a replacement? I'll probably upload it to add into Torchwood Institute anyway (later tonight, when I'm on a box that can handle that); is it appropriate for here? Radagast 21:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The question is whether the AoG logo, which is the Whoniverse "real world" version of the Torchwood Institute logo, will be the same as that used for the series logo. There's a difference there. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. I'll keep it to Torchwood Institute for now. Radagast 01:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No crossovers?
Seems a bit touch especially as episode 3 is called 'The Ghost Machine'. Sierra 1 17:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No direct, character crossovers: that is, the Doctor, Rose and/or any future or past companions won't be showing up anywhere during the run. It's certainly set in the same universe, and there's organizational heirarchy between the Canary Wharf and Cardiff locations, I'm sure. But no story will be based around a meeting between the central focus of the respective shows. Radagast 03:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Though it's been stated in various places that Jack is seeking the Doctor for something and how that will be resolved without at least some kind of crossover, even a minor one, is a mystery. And Captain Jack has been mentioned as cropping up again in Doctor Who at some point, which may count as a crossover. Unless it's during the time which was erased from his memory... which may have to be dealt with on Torchwood as well. As if Doctor Who continuity wasn't confusing enough already... Corbo 13:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I get the sense that Jack will rejoin the Doctor at a distinct point from his Torchwood experience - this would imply some kind of separation, perhaps, from them. I guess we need to wait for the finale to see, I'm just speculating... Radagast 21:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Cybermen/Daleks?
Can anyone explain how even though UNIT and TORCHWOOD managed to coexist for who knows how long, and who knows how many invasions, is it that no one at Torchwood seems to recognize either the Cybermen or the Daleks?--152.163.100.136 20:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hartman is the only one who explicitly asks what the Cybermen are. If you want a speculative answer, I'd just say she's an administrator, not a researcher. The last time the Earth saw a Cyberman incursion was in 1988, and she may not have been part of Torchwood then. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A wizard did it. Jefffire 11:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And in a later scene, she does tell Jackie how the 'upgrade' process works. So she'd likely heard of it, but had to be reminded of which species did it and what they look like. Radagast 21:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyberwoman
Surely she's gotta be one of 'our' universe Cybermen since Lumic took out everything save the brain with his. CSkankRabbit 10:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's his mistress, hehe :-P thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It was only Yvonne that described Cyber-conversion as chucking out everything but the brain, and she was the one asking what the Cybermen were earlier on, so she may be wrong. Additionally, the Cybermen had "converted" Torchwood employees without any outward change apart from their earphones. *fanwanky shrug* Rob T Firefly 10:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sci-Fi
Does anyone know if Sci-Fi has any plans on airing Torchwood?--DrBat 13:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt we'll find out until after the UK broadcast. Sci-Fi hasn't even confirmed that they'll be showing the 2006 season of Doctor Who yet. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Major edit, and table with all episodes/authors
I just completed a fairly major edit (with far too many "save page"s, for which I apologize — my internet connection was acting up and I didn't want to lose the work). The article had acquired a lot of unnecessary dates ("On 14 Julember 2005, Russell T. Davies announced...") and inconsistent citation formatting; I've tried to summarize the important information, with citations but without all the dates cluttering up the text. Here's the total diff of my changes; let me know if I've cut anything vital.

I think that we've accounted for all 13 episodes now, with all the writers who've been announced: here's a table, if we want to use it, but I won't put it in until (unless) anyone else thinks it's better than the text describing the filming blocks and the list of episodes.

The order of the episodes without confirmed numbers is fairly arbitrary, which may be a problem. Anyway, here it is if we want to use it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Status of Torchwood within the Doctor Who portal
I would be grateful for comments about this in the discussion on the Doctor Who Portal Talk Page. Thanks, Rnt20 10:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Teaser logo
There's a splash logo appearing on BBC 1 and 3 starting Monday (Screenshots:  ) - would this be appropriate for the article? It's a sight better thatn the DW-lozenge-inspired one we've had on there forever... Radagast 00:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No objections? I'm going ahead, then... Radagast 13:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

October 22nd
Today I saw the first bus advert that I was actually interested in. TORCHWOOD OCTOBER 22ND

'nuff said?--The last sheikah 13:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw an advert on BBC 1, which said October 22nd.Andy mci 07:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Torchwood Password
I have found an access code for the http://www.bbc.co.uk/torchwood/ BBC official website. If you go to this page and CLICK in the top left hand corner just below the grey bbc.co.uk a white cursor will appear and if you type in the ACCESS CODE as follows it will take you to a small trailer/clip you can watch, the ACCESS CODE is 221006, i believe also this is TORCHWOOD's premiere date! keep your eyes peeled for more infomation- signing off TorchwoodInstitute
 * Great, but how on earth do you find things like that?!Oli 21:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

official episode list
(from the BBC itself)

EPISODE 1: 'Everything Changes' by Russell T Davies When Torchwood arrives on the scene of a brutal murder, WPC Gwen Cooper's burning curiosity is challenged. Their attitude, their approach and their technology is at odds with everything she believes in. But investigating the investigators leads her into a dark, paranoid world she never imagined existed. EPISODE 2: 'Day One' by Chris Chibnall" An alien addicted to sex is let loose on Cardiff's nightlife. Torchwood must track down the creature's new host and in doing so, confront a violent new form of love in the 21st century

EPISODE 2: 'Day One' by Chris Chibnall An alien addicted to sex is let loose on Cardiff's nightlife. Torchwood must track down the creature's new host and in doing so, confront a violent new form of love in the 21st century

EPISODE 3: 'Ghost Machine' by Helen Raynor Torchwood discovers a machine that allows them to view the ghosts that walk among us. Using it, prompts Owen to investigate an unsolved crime - one that could change all their futures."

EPISODE 4: 'The Trouble With Lisa' by Chris Chibnall " There's a dark secret in the basement of the Hub. Even Jack is unaware of it, but Ianto knows. And he'll go to any lengths, sacrifice anything and anyone, to protect what's down there."

EPISODE 5: 'Small Worlds' by Peter J. Hammond Jasmine is a withdrawn but intelligent child whose new 'friends' exploit her suppressed anger, and while investigating this, Jack encounters elemental enemies from his past that are determined to harm those closest to him."

EPISODE 6: 'Countrycide' by Chris Chibnall Upon entering an apparently deserted village in the Brecon Becons, the Torchwood team is separated. Finding his people are the prey in a savage game of cat and mouse Jack faces a team of ruthless hunters far more skilled in surviving outside the confines of the city than he. "

EPISODE 7: 'Greeks Bearing Gifts' by Toby Whithouse. Tosh gains the ability to read the minds of those closest to her but as she becomes party to their darkest secrets, she realises not only is this is a powerful curse, but one impossible to break."

EPISODE 8: 'They Keep Killing' by Paul Tomalin & Dan McCulloch Using alien technology to interrogate the victims of a serial killer, Gwen learns that the common link is dangerously close to home. And the resurrection device has a deadly secret of its own. "

EPISODE 9: 'Invisible Eugene' by Jacquetta May A hit-and-run victim, Eugene, was a bit of a nobody, and always convinced that aliens were coming to Earth, specifically to retrieve technology in his possession. Now Gwen finds herself drawn into his world and realises Eugene may still be helping her locate the 'aliens' - despite him being dead."

EPISODE 10: 'Combat' by Noel Clarke The team discovers a ring who are kidnapping Weevils - wild alien creatures that have come through the Rift and are hiding on Earth - which leads Owen down a dark path to confront the future of his own existence. "

EPISODE 11: 'Out of Time' by Cath Tregenna A small passenger plane from the 1950's flies through the rift and lands in Cardiff 2006. Torchwood is drawn into strong personal relationships as they help the three temporal immigrants adapt to contemporary life."

EPISODE 12: 'Captain Jack Harkness' by Cath Tregenna Transported back to the Blitz, Jack and Tosh find themselves facing a dark secret from Jack's past, one he hoped and believed had been buried for good."

EPISODE 13: 'Apocalypse' by Chris Chibnall The Rift is violently fracturing further, and Jack realises that Torchwood is destined to be drawn into one vast battle that will leave nothing and no one at Torchwood unchanged..."


 * A paraphrased version of these is in List of Torchwood episodes. Radagast 19:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Captain Jack
What's this about Captain Jack sucking life out of aliens and people? It says this is revealed at the end of the first episode. Episode one hasn't aired. If it is true what is it doing in the spin-offs section?
 * This is unsourced and in the wrong section; I've removed it. Episode 1 has been shown at some public preview screenings in the UK, so some aspects may be true; but spoilers of that nature should go in the episode article, after its main broadcast. Radagast 20:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"he has since denied this"
I don't have access to the Radio Times — what exactly did Davies say about the "X-Files meets This Life" business? The original quotation was from the BBC's press release, and I've now cited it directly. Did he really deny the quote (as the article now has it)? The current wording seems peculiar. (It would also be good if someone who has the Radio Times could cite it properly, using cite news.) Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The RT, it say: "When the show was first announced, Davies was widely quoted as describing it as 'a dark, clever, wild, sexy, British crime/sci-fi paranoid thriller cop show with a sense of humour &mdash; The X-Files meets This Life.' Now he denies referencing those two cult hits, perhaps keen to portray Torchwood as its own beast. Instead, he talks of 'alleyways, rain, the city'. Think black."
 * It's not exactly unknown for the BBC Press Office to make up stories &mdash; after Christopher Eccleston's casting in Doctor Who, Davies said in one of his Production Notes columns for Doctor Who Magazine (paraphrasing this time as I don't have the issue to hand) "for once my quotes in the press release are entirely accurate."


 * And of course, we all know what they did when Eccleston left... Angmering 23:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Paul. For what it's worth, the Western Mail was still giving the "X-Files meets This Life" comparison as a Davies quote as late as today.  I've adjusted the wording in the article to indicate the uncertainty of whether Davies actually said it or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyberwoman details
I've removed the discussion of the Cyberwoman from the "Overview" section, as it's really about only one episode (as far as we know) and it's also mentioned (appropriately) under "Doctor Who story connections". The debate over whether her Cyber-technology originates from the parallel-earth Cybus Cybermen or the old-school Cybermen from Mondas and Telos is really just fan speculation — fine on Outpost Gallifrey, but not good in a Wikipedia article. Insofar as it's been discussed in the press, I think that can be moved to the individual episode article Cyberwoman when that's created. Anyone disagree? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"of African descent"
Is her race strictly relevant in this context? Seems extraneous to me. After all, we're not saying "she is seen electrocuting Jack (who is of Caucasian descent)", are we? Dunno. (shrugs) Kelvingreen 16:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree; the reference to her race is irrelevant, although I expect it will be a moot point after the episode shows this Sunday... --Mister Six 21:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this was mentioned as their was a rumour going around that the Cyberwoman was going to be Yvonne Hartman, and this was to make clear that the Cyberwoman in the adverts did not resemble Yvonne. --GracieLizzie 21:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why LGBT?
Why is this article in the LGBT category? Makerowner 03:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That category's description says, "This category lists television series that deal with or feature important gay, lesbian or bisexual or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device." Here's a direct quotation from the October issue of Gay Times magazine:


 * "This is the next stage in my plan to make everyone on TV gay," Davies laughs. It's a joke, but there have been dark mutterings in some corners of cyberspace that Russell has a dangerous "big gay agenda" with his stewardship of Doctor Who and now Torchwood.  But what Russell wants to do is to stop us thinking of TV characters as being only "gay" or "straight".


 * "Without making it political or dull, this is going to be a very bisexual programme," he explains. "I want to knock down the barriers so we can't define which of the characters is gay. We need to start mixing things up, rather than thinking, "This is a gay character and he'll only ever go off with men."


 * I think that qualifies the programme for inclusion in Category:LGBT television series (or whatever it is renamed). Specifically, it's the B part. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Although, upon reflection, the article doesn't contain any indication of this. I'll see if I can rectify that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've started a stub from that Gay Times article. I'm sure there've been other relevant mentions in the press; if anyone feels like expanding the section, please feel free. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about a couple of the examples given. It looks to me like Owen uses the pheremones on the guy to get out of a fight, rather than because he's attracted to him (although the fact he's prepared to is still significant), and the instant message log is in the context of Toshiko searching for Carys, so the "I'm looking for a woman" line doesn't really say anything about her sexuality. Daibhid C 20:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Toshiko "I'm looking for a woman" example from the website is ambiguous, although the fact that Toshi is seen kissing a woman in one of the series previews does indicate something. But as for Owen: at the end of the scene with the blonde and her boyfriend, he enthusiastically calls for a taxi.  The clear implication is that he's off for a threesome with both of them.  I'd say that it's appropriate to include that one. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In a subsequent episode, 'Greeks bearing gifts' Toshiko has an affair with a woman (actually a female alien). Indisciplined 23:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Missed that bit somehow, sorry, you're right. Daibhid C 20:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say the implication was that he was calling a taxi to escape. Jefffire 11:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I definitely wouldn't. The whole point of him using that spray was to get with them. I see no reason why he would have tried to escape afterward. If you look back at the episode, he was holding their hands when he called for the taxi. Domsy 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And he's got a broad grin on his face as he calls for the taxi. Watch the scene again — he's up for it.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course he has, she's hot. Whether he's tolerating or enjoying her boyfriend's presence is anyone's guess. This makes him ambiguous just as RTD stated his intention to be. 81.178.245.215 14:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know; I read it as Owen heading off for a threesome. Kelvingreen 12:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If we're counting stuff from the website, Owen's background check consists of a number of messages from "past conquests", and a letter from the hospital or surgery saying he's in serious trouble for this. One of the messages is from a Jason. Daibhid C 14:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Severed Hand
In Day One, notice how protective Jack is of the hand, which he wouldn't be if it were part of a Slitheen. More importantly, notice how a version of the new "Doctor's theme" from the soundtrack to the new Doctor Who series plays on the soundtrack as Jack cradles the hand. It's the only connection to the Doctor Jack has; of course he's going to be protective of it. Kelvingreen 21:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Was it confirmed then, that the hand is The Doctor's?N.f.m.c 23:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the Radio Times it is and they are usually a fairly good source when it comes to these things. --GracieLizzie 23:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, and the musical clue was pretty conclusive too. Kelvingreen 00:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone who has access to the Radio Times issue provide the citation, please? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup: Pg 12, 21 - 27 October issue. La  ï  ka  10:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Have added a citation. Kelvingreen 12:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What did everyone think?
Well thats where all of next seasons (and probably last seasons) Dr Who Budget went.

So they added blood and an F word in the first 1 minute.. Oooooh... and did someone get an 'orgasm' past the 9pm censors for the second episode... it's so grown up and not at all a limp Dr Who clone but without a strong lead character.

;) but still nice to see it all set in Cardiff Bay again.. and not pretending its London for a change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.152.46.79 (talk • contribs) 23:01, October 22, 2006  (UTC)


 * As much as I'd love to engage in a discussion with you. I am pretty sure we're not supposed to chat on the talk pages I'm afraid. --GracieLizzie 23:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. I share your excitement, but I'd like to draw your attention to the second banner at the top of the page, that says:
 * This is a talk page for discussion of the article about Torchwood. It is not for discussion about the program itself, unless that discussion involves improving the article. In particular, it is not for discussion about whether or not Torchwood is a "good" or "bad" program...
 * May I recommend the Outpost Gallifrey Forums as a better place to discuss the merits of Torchwood? :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Torchwood episode titles
We seem to have a minor conflict about whether or not these titles should be in italics or not. For those who came in late, let me explain why Doctor Who titles are an exception to the MOS (which is a guideline, not policy, in any case). The original Doctor Who series from 1967 to 1989 was in serial format, and therefore the story titles are correctly placed in italics. When the Doctor Who articles were set forward, the convention was to follow this, as well as the convention followed in nearly all licensed literature (Doctor Who Magazine, and other reference works) to place the story titles, even the ones in the new series, in italics. The compromise worked out was that in dealing with articles solely within the Wikiproject, the episode/story titles would remain in italics, but outside, they would not.

The questions now, I suppose, are this:


 * a) Is Torchwood within the Wikiproject?
 * b) Should Torchwood episode titles be italicised?
 * c) Should Doctor Who story/episode titles within Torchwood articles be italicised?

These questions can be answered separately. I personally lean towards a muddy solution where yes, Torchwood is part of the Wikiproject, but Torchwood episodes are not italicised whereas Doctor Who stories mentioned within the articles are. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable to me, albeit, as you say, muddy: we would then talk about Terror of the Autons or The Empty Child, but "Everything Changes". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it may look odd if Doctor Who titles are in italic and Torchwood titles are not. Therefore, following the explanation of why Doctor Who titles are italic, I think Torchwood titles should also be italic. I think Torchwood probably is a part of the WikiProject. Anyway sorry for the mini edit war, though I suppose it's a good thing if it inspires these discussions. I just thought I should add that, if we/you do decide to change the titles to italic, then the song titles that are mentioned should still be in quotation marks. &mdash; AnemoneProj e ctors (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, definitely song titles should be in quotes; that's got nothing to do with the titles. Well, if Anemone agrees, then perhaps we should fall back to the default position and consider Torchwood as part of the Whoniverse and italicise the story titles. I'll go ahead with changing that on the episode articles themselves for a start. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think many members of the Doctor Who project (maybe I should join?!) are automatically using italics anyway so it'd be really difficult to change that, especially with mentions on character pages and everything else. &mdash; AnemoneProj e ctors (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple torchwoods
I have added a section about the multiple Torchwoods, but there are probably some errors. It may also be better in annother place. --Warlorddagaz 11:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ratings
Perhaps someone should add somewhere that the first two episodes on BBC3 set a new record for a digital-only broadcast ratings. ? --Amaccormack 14:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Outside the government?
In the doctor who christmass special the Prime Minister was shown to have direct authority in Torchwood, and persoanlly authorised the attack on the alien ship. Yet Captain Jack Harkness says that Torchwood is outside the government, was he lieing or is this a plot hole?


 * Actually, no: in The Christmas Invasion, while Harriet gave the order to fire, it was earlier established that the Prime Minister isn't even supposed to know about Torchwood, so there's no real contradiction. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Credible reference?
So I'm s'posing we're all considering Toshiko Instant Messenger Transcript as a credible source of information? DrWho42 06:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's off an official website, which is plausibly (but debatably) canon. Mind you, following RTD's statements, the whole issue is moot anyway. La  ï  ka  10:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nav box
Should there be a separate nav-box for Torchwood. Really, articles such as List of Torchwood episodes and List of Torchwood monsters and aliens should be in a Nav box, but putting them in the Doctor Who navbox would be too cluttering and irrevelvant for 95% of Doctor Who content. La  ï  ka 10:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, I've just found Template:Torchwood, but it's an ugly little navbox. I'll try to improve it. La  ï  ka  10:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Rhys article?
Given that he appears in more than one episode should Rhys Williams get an article, he looks like he is going to be a regular (it is Rhys who is Gwen's boyfriend right? I keep getting confused over names). Also what about Gwen's former police partner (PC Andy?) he appears in both episodes but I am not so sure about him as his appearence in Day One is very brief and I don't know if we'll see him again. --GracieLizzie 13:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My personal feeling is "wait and see". If Rhys gets developed as a character, he should get his own article. If he simply appears at the beginning and end to remind us that Gwen has a normal life, there's probably not much to say about him that wouldn't fit in her article. Daibhid C 14:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, for now I've created a redirect page at Rhys Williams (Torchwood) and I am going to add some info about him to the Gwen article. --GracieLizzie 14:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What is Rhys' job again? For now I've put transport manager but I don't think that is exactly right. --GracieLizzie 15:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Torchwood Declassified
I think there should be an article or at least a section about the Declassifieds, since they are the TW pendant of the Doctor Who Confidentials, is there someone who'd like to write one? --Salocin 23:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Torchwood supporting characters
I've just created this cos we need a place for Suzie and Rhys. I didn't know what to write about Rhys though. Also I didn't know what to call the article so I named it after the Doctor Who article. I hope that's ok :-) &mdash; AnemoneProj e ctors (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, now we've got a fork, since Suzie Costello is now under List of Torchwood villains. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * D'oh. &mdash; AnemoneProj e ctors (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Christmas Invasion
Shouldn't The Christmas Invasion be included as a related Doctor Who episode in the Torchwood Template section? StaffanBaloo 14:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably. I'll fix that little oversight now. DonQuixote 19:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Martha not in Series 3
Freema Agyeman will not reprise her role as Martha Jones in Series 3 of Torchwood because she is working on a UK version of Law and Order for ITV.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article1467855.ece

Should this be mentioned? Sama4 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say no, as she never was part of the cast. People kept adding rumors about her being in series 3, but we never had any reliable source for those to begin with. So mentioning that some character which was never announced to be in series 3 will in fact really not be in there is not something we need to include. But good idea to think about it and even better that you did not just add it but sought discussion first! You are welcome to work with us on The Doctor Who WikiProject to improve Doctor Who related articles. Have a nice day! :-)  So # Why  13:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's good evidence that will hopefully stop those adding her in to the article. Thanks! Tphi (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok well thanks! =) Sama4 (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cast list
Should Burn Gorman and Naoko Mori be removed from the cast list now that the radio play has been on? The official BBC website has been updated to only show Jack, Gwen and Ianto on the front page now Tescomarc (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No. WP:MOS shows how we write about fictional characters. -- Rodhull andemu  18:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Freema Agyeman shouldn't be in the cast list as "starring" wasn't she only ever "guest starring" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/torchwood/sites/news/guest_news.shtml) in the same way that James Marsters was? PoisonedPigeon (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

AUS DVD dates
Is there a set date for when the series 2 will come out in this little/big island/continent I don't think it says the day in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.4.241 (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of soundtrack(s)
I notice we've mentioned there being an official soundtrack for the show, (and created and linked to the full wikipedia article about it). Would it be worth mentioning as well the prior existence of an UNofficial Torchwood soundtrack? The unofficial soundtrack, which was created and released by fans to bit torrent, consisted mainly of songs (primarily rock, some old-style big-band music, and stuff) that were playing in the background during various first-season episodes. Say, a character walks into a bar, and this music is playing in the bar, and because of that the same song is added to the unofficial soundtrack. (I'd link here to the appropriate page at thepiratebay.org but I don't know if that'd be appropriate.) --Nomad Of Norad (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's unofficial then it's not notable enough unless it's widespread in the media, and since it isn't then it isn't worth noting on Wikipedia at all. Jammy (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Not only that, but any unofficial soundtrack clearly violated copyright laws, and we definitely don't encourage that on Wikipedia. Talk Islander 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Action figure line
Why is the official action figure line considered "not notable" among a list including every single other piece of spin-off merchandise (books, audio books, radio plays, magazines, comic strips, downloads, etc. ) out there? What is the criterion in deciding which official merchandise is notable and which non-notable? No justification has been given as to why this one line of merchandise should be singled out for exclusion. The Doctor Who page includes the DW action figure line (I have checked a few other Wiki pages for TV shows and movies with action figure lines and can't find one where they are not included).

Please explain why the official BBC-licensed creator and the official BBC.co.uk website are considered not good sources. The sources clearly show the line exists and is official. What kind of sources are needed? These are popular action figures you can buy in a million shops, what about them is so dubious? Every other piece of merchandise listed on this page is either uncited or has only the seller listed as source (e.g. a link to the iTunes site mainpage with nothing mentioning Torchwood). Queer Scout (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The action figure line is of particular note as they were not originally introduced because making toys would be linking the adult-themed show to children's toys. The figures were only introduced after the pre-watershed cut versions were made.  (Not having a great day at stringing sentences together, so not quite sure I've made sense there.) PoisonedPigeon (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * They have no notability because they have no coverage independent media. Doctor Who has at least 40 years of history (but that page also needs sourcing). All the information the paragraph tells us is that there are action figures; nothing more. This is non-information, and with only sellers as sources, it breaks WP:SPAM. Therefor removed. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 14:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That gives no explanation as to why you have decided the action figure line is singled out to be "non notable" when Wiki precedent shows action figure lines are notable merchandise. As already pointed out, none of the merchandise is cited to an independent source, and much of it is not cited at all. There is no coverage in independent media for the other merchandise (for example the soundtrack has its own page which contains no sources and no information except that a soundtrack exists, and a description of it). I fail to see how you can have an non-sourced, extensive merchandise section and then claim mentioning the existence of merchandise is spam. Mentioning that a TV show has spin off merchandise is not spam. Queer Scout (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right; other pages do mention action figures without sources, and maybe they should be removed as well. However, that has no bearing here; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS precludes any such arguments. The reason I called it spam is becuase the links all point to the seller's site and other online shops. These cannot be considered as sources.
 * Mention of the action figures may be OK, but it does not deserve it's own section. Porbably best is to include mention in Doctor Who merchandise. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And yet you continue to ignore requests from multiple editors to explain why you have singled out one line of merchandise from all the rest as non notable and spam, and why you claim the action figure line requires such incredibly stringent sources (I do not believe the BBC is an unacceptable source for a BBC show and that anyone could genuinely consider the BBC's own website to be "spam" -- what does that make all the links to iTunes, Titan Publishers and SilvaScreen?) when all the other merchandise listed is either uncited or has only a online shop as source. We are talking about one single well-sourced sentence in a section about merchandise; the very existence of a "Torchwood Merchandise" section invalidates the claim that merchandise is non-notable and that mentioning merchandise is spam. Queer Scout (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Even the Doctor Who article does not have a section about action figures. Instead it is mentioned in it's onw article, to which I added a link. Place the information there. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no real investment in either including or excluding the information, but could you please explain why it's WP:SPAM to mention the action figures, yet the same apparently doesn't apply to the soundtrack, magazine, novels or audiobooks, despite the only references there also being to the retailers? Frickative  17:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast picture format
The articles says it is originated as 1080p HDTV. I would like to see a citation for this because I have reason to believe it is originated as 1080i HDTV (to the best of my knowledge the BBC HD channel is exclusively 1080i/25), though I haven't changed the article because I have no concrete proof. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is shot in 1080p, but transmitted as 1080i. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 23:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you cite a reference for that, please? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No I can't... Simple observation is sufficient to see that it is shot in 25p. HD Broadcast are almost always transmitted in 25i, as it can accomodate both 25p and 25i material. Sending a 25p signal through a 25i broadcast doesn't change anything in the picture; it merely means that a single frame is sent using two interlaced fields. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He's correct, just in case anyone was wondering. I have yet to see anything stating that the HD content is broadcast in anything other than 1080i.  It's not a resolution change, just a signal change. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought there might be a mention in the article about the shonky quality of the pictures in the first shooting block - I think I read somewhere it was due to some dodgy camera settings and an unfamiliarity with HD on behalf of the production team (it looked like blended fields to me) David (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)