Talk:Torchwood: Children of Earth/Archive 1

Reception
Is quoting a review on Digital Spy really a reference to a reliable or noteworthy source? Ramore —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC).


 * It's probably the biggest UK TV review site on the internet, so I would say so. It's not like we're quoting some random blogger.  Although I agree with the inference that we should have more reviews, and maybe include the quote from Digital Spy if it's typical of what other reviewers are saying.--Mark davo (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need the idiotic 'review' of some Mirror guy who seemed like he didn't even watch it and apparently finds Weetabix irritating (weirdo)? How about reviews from sources that aren't from a sorry excuse for a 'newspaper'? 86.27.82.79 (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do need the review from The Mirror because the article has to provide a balanced coverage of reviews and not just include the ones that are favourable. This is not a Torchwood fanpage.80.41.8.233 (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that including the one non-favourable review, out of hundreds, and it being such a nutty one, is not at all balanced. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► First Secretary of State ─╢ 10:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its the "reception" section that has to be balanced, not each individual review itself. The section has to provide a range of reviews, but without each review repeating what the others have said. We can't just sweep the Mirror review under the rug just because the reviewer didn't like Torchwood, and its not like it was the only negative review "out of hundreds" as you put it (even Metacritic only lists 12 reviews on it at present). I don't think that the Mirror review is nutty at all. The reviewer thinks that COE ripped off "The Midwich Cuckoos", which is the novel that became the film "Village Of The Damned" (which you will note that the reviewer for The New York Times also picked up on, so its more than valid). The Mirror guy also said that Torchwood is akin to Blakes 7 with its silly plots and hammy acting and that John Barrowman is overexposed on television. You personally might not agree with him, but its certainly a valid opinion. 80.41.9.249 (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Broadcast Date
Would early summer be better than 'June/July'. The quote is the BBCA president saying he was 'fairly certain that it was going to be the first part of this summer, possibly late June or early July' Edgepedia (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cast list
The infobox was ridiculously long because it listed every single confirmed actor to appear in the production as a "guest star". I'd prefer to remove minor actors from the article altogether (we should not list every single actor who appears in every television production). Since there is an objection to this I've compromised by removing the full list to its own section and trimming the infobox. --TS 16:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the cast list in the infobox so "ridiculously long" for 5 hours of television? Normally it's a lot shorter, but that's for 40 minutes. Looking at The Stolen Earth (a FA using the same infobox) we have such people as a Gary Milner – Scared Man and Amy Beth Hayes – Albino Servant listed as Guest Stars. The problem is if you don't list them all it ends up being someone POV as to who's listed or not. I was thinking that another section 'also appearing' or somesuch to the infobox could perhaps solve the problem, but that wouldn't - how could we tell if someone was a star or an 'also appearing' person? Perhaps we should change 'Cast' to 'Staring' and 'Guest Stars' to 'Also Appearing' which seems to be how it's used.


 * Your sentence "Having started on the BBC's digital-only BBC3 channel, after a successful run on BBC2 in series 2, the third series moves to the flagship channel, BBC1.. [9]". I left that in last night, thinking about it. As it's phased at the moment I'm not sure it's neutral. But also, what's it about the broadcast of first and second series is so important to this one? As far as I can see, the important broadcast information about this series is in the second line "due to be broadcast in June or July 2009 on BBC One, the series' debut on the channel." Edgepedia (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Edgepedia on both accounts. There is no way of telling which actors should and should not be featured. If you were going by the trailer, you've already removed some actors who featured in the trailer such as Charles Abomeli and Rik Makarem seemingly on the basis that they don't have a Wikipedia page of their own. It looked a lot neater in the infobox than it does now, half way down the article. Films such as The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring have similarly sized infoboxes for only 3 hours runtime.


 * Ditto, I'm not really sure what more needs to be said than the fact that this is the series' debut on BBC One. If we really needed something about the importance of being on BBC One, I'm sure you can find an official source stating the BBC's reasoning for putting it there. Clockwork Apricot (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's obvious that the list is hideously, blatantly, stupidly long, and that the "guest stars" list should be reserved for those who are described as "guest stars", not just random members of the cast. But I'm in a minority here so I'll wait until it's equally obvious to everyone. --TS 18:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the last edit. I meant to self-revert rather than encourage edit-warring, but it didn't seem to show up in the history so I assumed I'd cancelled in time. --TS 19:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am with Tony Sidaway on this one. Just because other articles do it wrong doesn't mean we ought to also. This list needs to be reduced. -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk)00:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't think the cast list is long enough. I think it should be increased to five times its current length even if that means listing several cast members that will not or cannot appear in the show such as Donald Sinden and David Yip. (Not Ian Ogilvy though.) (unsigned comment by 194.74.242.33)

<-indent We need to comply with reliable sources and original research policies here, as everywhere else on wikipedia. Looking for this to be a featured article (and therefore looking at the style of similar featured articles) should be something we are all working towards. Edgepedia (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Cast List section in the infobox is far too long. As per WP:MOSTV, not every single character needs to be mentioned and only the regular cast and main guest stars/characters should be included. I'm going to leave this up to some Torchwood fans to deal with over the next few days, but at least 75% of the guest cast list needs removing. 80.41.46.196 (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

TBA
Still a lot of characters listed as TBA, is there anywhere we can source names? magnius (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

dubious
GMT or BST? I don't remember either being discussed. Perhaps it's just British local time. Edgepedia (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure GMT was mentioned.  Who niverse 93  talk?  10:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed GMT is mentioned at about 11 mins in. Edgepedia (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Image
I've just uploaded a (with hindsight poor quality) fair-use image of the title screen but didn't realise that the titles image in the main Torchwood article is labelled as free on the basis of it being simple geometric shapes. Would somebody with graphical wizardry like to convert the CoE image to .svg format and re-upload it as a free image? Bradley0110 (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with the one you have done. magnius (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

templates
plot - according to the WP:WHO/MOS the guide is 10 words per minute. Day one (60 minutes long) is 407 words (according to my MS word wordcount), so looks fine to me. What we need is of course more production material.

listtable - what list?

Edgepedia (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the time we get to Day 5, list page will be ridiculously long, and as the template says, it should discuss the work rather than reiterate the entire plot. Listwise, it may look better to have something along the lines of the ones used in The Supersizers.... magnius (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A table format would look disgusting. Five subsections (marked with ; and not ===) of no more than one or two paragraphs each will be fine. In fact, the first section sorta needs 2 paragraphs for a lot of explaining, but I can't see why most should need more than one.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added the current event template - with it being over five nights it feels more like a current event, and I thought it might get the folks who want to wait until the show's over off your backs..... Wasn't me who added the listtable template though - I can't see how anyone thought that would work. You will need to cut down the plot as subsequent eps come in - looks like you've got that covered though.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As it's a current serial, I'm fine with a long plot summary until the end of the week, when we can put events into context more. A plot summary of a thousand to fifteen-hundred words may be prudent at the end. Sceptre (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One paragraph can accurately sum up a season on a character's Appearances section. I estimate that three, inevitably, should be enough to cover a whole season quite broadly.~ZytheTalk to me! 00:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

An "expand" request has been made for the Day Four summary. While edits to the copy are fine, surely one paragraph is enough? I'm thinking six (chunky) paragraphs total should cover the whole serial!~ZytheTalk to me! 00:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's better than the fanboys/girls whining that was on there before. Hopefully it can get a little more expanded as I do agree. -- Sefina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.22.87 (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuity and the Macra
This isn't "putting in guesses". What it is is observing two things: firstly, there are very noticable parallels between the 456 and the Macra. Even if the foe is not the Macra, Russelll T Davies with his near encylopedic knowledge of Dr Who must be drawing on these parallels - so there is a continuity link here as he has purposefully drawn on the elements taken from the show's past. The parallels are too much to be a coincidence. Secondly, I've not found one single discussion forum where this theory hasn't been proposed, so it is not a case of "putting in guesses" so much as accurately reflecting a general trend among fans. Many fans have reacted to the aforementioned elements they've seen by coming to that conclusion. It may be Davies is just playing with the fans, but that's neither here nor there. Fan reaction is something that is important and deserves to be viewed as a cultural phenomenon in it's own right and therefore it should validly be included as part of this entry. 82.110.160.178 (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right in one sense. It is a genuine continuity link, which fans everywhere will notice. However, Wikipedia's place to comment on it only derives from the commentary of others. If Digital Spy, io9 or The Guardian guessed it or supposed it, we could then say "After the airing of Day Three, Ben Rawson-Jones of Digital Spy noted..." If they do a Declassified after Friday, I'm sure it will come up there too.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's the Macra, I think the gas chamber is to allow a dramatic unveiling which as usual will turn out to be an anticlimax. John Simm in a gasmask and a tutu?Keith-264 (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Similar or not, this has no place in the article unless there is a reliable source linking the two. The source previously offered is merely an unreliable source engaging in original research. It has nothing to do with continuity and everything to do with being non-notable trivia. If RTD speaks up and admits an influence then maybe it can be added, until then it has no place here. magnius (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Question
I would like to know whether the the beast was hurt by Jack's gunshot. -- Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 00:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the beast, I assume you mean the 456 ambassador? Anyway Jack and Ianto shot at the tank, which appeared to be bulletproof, so no, it probably was not hurt. If you ask me I don't know why the government didn't just fire a missile at it.  Who niverse 93  talk?  00:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the 456 will accend on the earth like the darleks did and attack earth directly. What species is the 456 and what you think they need the children for?  I think the doctor should show up sometime soon!  I wonder why the Torchwood guys appear in Doctor Who but not vice versa.  Furthermore, why are these things are happening only happening in the Uk but not in America or China? -- Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 01:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, the government stated that if they did kill it, other members of the species would likely wipe out the human race, and they also stated that London was chosen for the negotiations because of what happened in 1965, as for the children, they are acting the same way all over the world, not just in the UK. Secondly, this isn't a place for speculation about the species identity or to discuss what you think should happen, it is for the discussion of the article's content and not a forum. 91.109.222.153 (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to know whether Jack "dies" contracting the virus when he kisses Ianto? -- Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 11:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not an appropriate discussion for an article talkpage. Please take your discussion to the Torchwood communityElen of the Roads (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is approate because then I would understand the plot better. -- Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 11:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No it is not. Article talk pages are for discussion on how to improve the article, not speculation on the tv program that is the topic of the article.  Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about the question of Jack dieing. Is it because of the virus or not.  I don't want to add incorect info to the article. -- Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 12:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it was the virus, and yes, if you really must know, they are a gay couple (where you even watching? This is a very obvious fact) magnius (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to verify the "facts" with other more "knowledgable" members. -- Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 12:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the"expert" tags that you placed here. Tags of this kind should not be placed on the article talkpage. And before you say anything, these should not be placed on the article either - there are quite enough 'experts' editing here.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► sundries ─╢ 16:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Run times
Do the run times really need to be that painfully accurate, aren't they usually rounded up to the nearest minute? I've certainly never seen a film listed with the odd seconds added, even on the back of cases. magnius (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Round them all to 59. Standard BBC length (30 seconds for the opening, 30 seconds for the ending), and Amazon gives the DVD length as 295 minutes in total. Sceptre (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Different articles for each episode?
Could this be split into 5 different articles. It would shorten the cast list (as not every character appears in every episode) and shorten the plot section by splitting it into 5 parts. This page could be left as a general page for the series like the Doctor Who (series 1) page. It would also allow the writers colum in the infobox to be simplified - as each article would only have the writer for that episode. 86.131.237.120 (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is completely unnecessary. magnius (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article isn't hugely long, and would probably benefit from the plot sections being shortened - or better still the five days' plots being reduced to one section. I'm not sure the article needs to be split. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 21:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It should probably be treated like a Doctor Who serial, particularly the comparatively equal length The War Games. DonQuixote (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would appear many fans have no idea how to write summary. Too much fondness for detail. As it stands, this article needs a complete rewrite before we can even start working on the stuff to get it closer to GA or FA. Five articles would make no sense, the whole thing's real-world focus relates to its BBC One striping, and its consistent good reviews and climbing ratings over 5 nights.~ZytheTalk to me! 11:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the overnights for last night dropped a couple of hundred thousand in comparison to Thursday. Still, I agree the summary is a bit long. I believe we should aim for, at the most, a thousand to twelve-hundred words. It is the longest Doctor Who serial since The Trial of a Time Lord and/or The Dalek Invasion of Earth (355 and 300 minutes respectively). Sceptre (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we should bare in mind that Part 5 is a Friday so a .4 drop is respectable. A lot of people, myself included, were watching Bruno. Friday night is a death slot; in Amerca, 5.8 on a Friday on FOX is considered fantastic.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is true. Some people also go out on a Friday; I did myself, but I stayed in for Torchwood. And yes, Friday night is a death slot. I was quite surprised FOX showed all of the Dollhouse epsiodes (okay, maybe not "Epitaph One", but that's because of their contract, not pulling the show), let alone renew it. Sceptre (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Try The TV IV for Torchwood in seperate episodes. It's a wiki powered site.REVUpminster (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of multiple pages, perhaps adding Day One, Day Two, etc subheadings for the plot summary similar to the way some long book plot summaries are split into chapter sections. -- Autopilot (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted User:Whoniverse93 commentless revertion of User:REVUpminster's addition of per-episode sections since the topic is under discussion here. -- Autopilot (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw this section had sprang to life so I thought I would do it as the plot section was so unwieldly and difficult to follow. Perhaps within each plot section the "speech" should be mentioned as it was what the UK children were saying and was the writers linking device between episodes.REVUpminster (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about my reversion. I didn't know this discussion was taking place. I reverted it because it had quotes from the different episodes, which are unnecessary. I think we should put in subheadings with Day One, Day Two etc. W93 (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

REVUpminster (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To delete original research is often used as an excuse but the article is about a work of fiction when the subject is the primary source. That is why a plot summary can appear with minutes of a programme finishing and it is ok. seeThese_are_not_original_research

I don't think the subheadings are necessary. It's a serial; not a series of loosely connected episodes, but one story.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I found the plot section far to long and unwieldy until the introduction of the sub-headings. Wdcf (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sub-headings are patronising. Why not clearly separated paragraphs? Some episodes don't actually contribute much to the plot, and sub-headings encourage editors to grant them equal weight.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 21:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A paragraph for each "day"/episode and the epilogue is hardly "long and unwieldy", it's pretty clearly laid out. I agree with Zythe, sub-headings are completely unnecessary.  I hate this obsession on Wikipedia with splitting everything into separate sections/paragraphs/articles and spoon-feeding it to the reader.     Paul    730  22:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the fact that with sub-headings someone doesn't have to trawl through the entire article just to remind themselves what happened on Day 5 or to check, was it Day 3 or Day 4 when event X happened. It is not until you commence reading that it becomes clear the author has spit the text into paragraphs by Day, and not per event, for example. Sub-headings are patronising when the BBC just stick random sound-bites in, to break the page up, yes.  But when their presence tells you the proceeding text covers a different aspect of whatever you're reading about, it saves you reading stuff you don't want to read, and makes it quicker to find something when you refer back to the article - Wikipedia is after all for reference, it's not a novel. Wdcf (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Encyclopaedias are encouraged to be written with flair, clarity and sophistication. In fact, Wikipedia requires this for FAs. Wikipedia is not for reference and has no duty to summarise the events of every episode, either. Really, I think the plot section should be three paragraphs and citations should make clear what goes where. IMDB and TV.com are for uberfans to decipher what/when. Ideally, this article would have production / critical commentary on key scenes in other sections as is the case in FAs. Perhaps a quote (for e.g.) how Jack's departure scene is a callback to XY, the intertextual connection to such and such in the forklift scene, which writer contributed such and such a line in such and such a scene. Notability should determine which scenes Wikipedia even cares to summarise.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 00:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought encyclopaedias were for reference, including Wikipedia. Here's my reference: Wikipedia. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdcf (talk • contribs) 23:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Similarities to Quatermass?
While watching the series I couldn't help noticing a couple of similarities to Nigel Kneale's fourth Quatermass serial.

1): The 456's point of origin is undetectable, meaning that Earth has no military target at which to retaliate; compare Quatermass's impersonal harvesting beam.

2): The 456 are harvesting children so that some part of their body chemistry can be used as recreational drugs. Compare Quatermass, in which the bodies of young (though not all juvenile) humans are processed for a tiny part of their chemical makeup.

These similarities may or may not be deliberate, but I suggest they are too great to ignore. Lee M (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly deliberate, as Doctor Who, especially the revival, but also original research. Sceptre (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You could also say it's similar to Doomwatch (the one off with Trevor Eve) or Lynda la Plante's Prime Suspect because of it's format.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

3): Fight back by sending energy through the invader's own signal, and involve a child known to the central character.

86.25.121.203 (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup. I just went and reminded myself of the plot of Quatermass (I did watch it at the time, but y'know...).  I do think those pointing out the similarity have a good point.  As I recall, that ended like a Russian fairytale (they all died happily ever after) as well.  Wait for a couple of reviewers to point it out, and it can go in the article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction??
"Gwen pleads with him not to just run away, but he teleports into space" He does not teleport but he sends a signal to a space cruiser to pick him up. In the last episode of Doctor Who the Doctor disables Jack's teleportation device. 86.169.203.76 (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Scott Brown
 * Don't you think that the cruiser could have a teleporter which picks him up after he signals it? No correction needed. magnius (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup tag
I've removed the tag. Frickative seems to have done a very good job on the plot rewrite (even if he couldn't resist adding the note on King Ianto's coffee club), and that was the thing that really required rewriting.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! (Just to defend myself, it wasn't me that added the coffee club aside :p) The bit I was most concerned about condensing was the defeat of the 456, so perhaps someone with a better technical understanding of what happened there might want to clarify those sentences little. Frickative  22:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, misread the diffs. I'm very bad at that - you're not the first embarassment of mine.  While we're mentioning livejournal though, someone in one of the fan comms has written a wonderful post asserting that Russell Davies only way of ending TW/DW series seems to be a combination of telecommunications and glowy fog.  A little harsh perhaps, but he does seem to have fallen back on it here, so I don't expect you'll actually get a more technical explanation of what happened, any more than of why the Doctor suddenly turned into Tinkerbelle at the end of Last of the Time Lords.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Poor wording
Having started on the BBC's digital-only BBC Three channel and moving to BBC Two in series two, the third series of Torchwood was broadcast on BBC One. Not quite a dangling modifier, but it suggests it is the third series that started on BBC Three and then moved to BBC Two, rather than Torchwood itself.

[...] was broadcast during the week [...] 20 July 2009[20] on BBC America. The 20 July is next week, so this should be in the future tense, surely? &mdash; 79.78.38.65 (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then go fix it. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► voice vote ─╢ 07:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Jack's brother Gray
During the episode Exit Wounds, Jack's brother Gray was placed in stasis in the morgue of the hub. I didn't hear any, but was there a mention of him after the hub was destroyed? Robin.lemstra (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I suppose Gray, Suzie, Toshiko and everyone else are smithereens now.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 13:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem with references markup
I ran the cite checker over all the references after I saw two were coming up bad. A list of the problems it found is below, but I can't fix all of these as I don't in some cases know what the references should be. Whoever added the last two to the fan reaction section, can you go back and put the full references in please.


 * Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
 * press office	Multiple references are given the same name>
 * ProgInfo	Multiple references are given the same name
 * GDLexit	A named reference is used but not defined
 * RTD on death	A named reference is used but not defined

List compiled by --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Miles essay
I've restored a paragraph about a highly significant essay by Lawrence Miles. If this conflicts with guidelines the guidelines should be changed. This is an important review of a very speculative move by the Torchwood team, and Miles' opinion should not be ignored. If necessary it should be described as a special opinion or whatever, rather than a review, but removing it because some guideline or other doesn't specify this precise kind of content is not, in my opinion, acceptable. --TS 21:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Tony but Wikpedia does not change its guidelines just to suit you. I am fully aware of who Lawrence Miles is, but his opinion about Torchwood is not relevant to a section that deals with critical reviews. You (and everyone else) need to read WP:MOSTV. It details what kind of reviews or critiques and from what sources are acceptable. A blog by Lawrence Miles does not make the grade I'm afraid. He is not a professional television critic, and his affiliation with the Dr Who franchise means that there is a problem with bias. ALL critical reviews need to come from neutral sources. You cannot circumvent Wikipedia guidelines just because it pleases you. 80.41.46.196 (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Guidelines are not Holy Law. Their basic definition (even the official guideline-template) allows that they can be ignored if common sense or other reasons permit it. This is such a case and there is nothing we have to change the guidelines for. Miles' review is a special case because of his semi-involved status, which allows him to make more detailed and insightful reviews of DW franchise without being directly involved. Regards  So Why  22:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

IP has now removed the information three times, and been reverted three times by three different editors (including me). Since he'd only done it twice when SoWhy left a note, I have left him another.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 80.41.46.196 writes: "I'm sorry Tony but Wikpedia does not change its guidelines just to suit you. "
 * Actually I've been instrumental in writing and altering Wikipedia's guidelines, as have most of the long term editors of Wikipedia. However, in response to your request I have read the guideline you reference.  It's possible that I've missed something, but the description there certainly doesn't seem to exclude this kind of critical essay. In particular, your statement that "ALL critical reviews need to come from neutral sources" is very problematic. It bears no relation to Wikipedia policy and, if it did, that policy would be impossible to follow.  There are no neutral sources.  --TS 22:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, SoWhy - your opinion about ignoring the WP:MOSTV guidelines to include Lawrence Miles' review is purely POV. But regardless of the flexibility of guidelines, it also contravenes WP:SOURCES, which is a policy and not just a guideline. Policies are not flexible. Tony - a "neutral source" is a reliable source that is not in any way already affiliated with the production or franchise in question (mainstream newspapers, magazines, and other media). That way you avoid fancruft reviews (which are fine for fansites but not for Wikipedia). You also have to take into account the sentence "Be careful when searching for reviews, and make sure they are coming from professional reviewers". Lawrence Miles is not a professional reviewer, he is a little more than a glorified fan who has written some spin-off books for Dr Who. This leads to serious issues of bias, as he is simply too close to the franchise to offer a credible opinion - no matter how well written you may think his essay is. There is also an issue about his credentials considering he has admitted writing reviews when he was drunk (see his own article page). It totally fails WP:RS as reliable sources are "credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". I admit he probably knows a fair bit about Dr Who, but is he a credible, reliable, professional reviewer? He doesn't even come close. At a stretch, you could include his thoughts about Dr Who-related matters on his own article page (providing they are notable in some way and have been appropriately sourced), but they are totally misplaced on this article because in this context he is little more than a fan providing an opinion on his blog that is little more than fancruft. Furthermore, there is nothing particularly notable about his review to warrant inclusion in the first place and placing it in the article merely "weights" the Reception section unnecessarily. If you want to go and find a review that comes from a professional critic or unbiased expert that is published in a reliable source and does not simply reiterate what has already been said by any of the other reviewers (good or bad) then I would have no problem with its inclusion. 80.41.46.196 (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

80.41.46.196, you write: "I admit he probably knows a fair bit about Dr Who, but is he a credible, reliable, professional reviewer?" Well you're half way there. He is certainly credible and reliable, having himself produced several published works of fiction that have been published as licensed spin-offs. So you're really asking whether he's a professional reviewer. I submit that this is a misreading of the relevant guideline. You quoted it as:
 * "Be careful when searching for reviews, and make sure they are coming from professional reviewers".

Note the full stop that you inserted at the end of that series of words.

Actually it doesn't say that at all. It says:
 * "Be careful when searching for reviews, and make sure they are coming from professional reviewers, and not simply a fan of the series."

I have included that part you omitted, which provides context to the first part of the sentence. The emphasis in the above, by the way, is mine.

So when we're faced with the view of a reliable, credible professional who is not specifically employed as a reviewer, we have to make a judgement.

This is the page where we make judgements.

You also claim that the inclusion contravenes our policy on reliable sources. I think you're pushing it a bit. We know who he is and we know it's his blog. He wrote it. It's verifiably his opinion. --TS 00:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I do think your interpretation of the source component of WP:V is....unusual. I think the problem is that the source is not a secondary but a primary source - as with all the direct reviews cited, it is not a summary of the opinion of Lawrence Miles, it is Lawrence Miles himself stating his opinion. As you'll note a little further down in WP:V~SOURCES, it says Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article and even Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves.

As there is no difficulty about verifying that he is the author of the piece, and the purpose is to give a source of information about himself, ie his opinion of the programme, his blog can quite correctly be used as a primary source for the statement "the opinion of Lawrence Miles is....." So it becomes a question of - is the opinion of Lawrence Miles significant in terms of this article. That is something that needs to be determined by consensus, not by citing policy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was reading this discussion last night (which I actually found more interesting than the article itself to be honest). I also thought Lawrence Miles' review was "iffy" at best, but rather than get directly involved, I posted a message on the Reliable Sources noticeboard (which is basically what you lot should have done) to ask for opinions from editors who were not Torchwood fans and would therefore offer an unbiased opinion. There seems to be a general consensus there that Lawrence Miles' review is so problematic in so many ways that it should not be included. Aside from him not being a professional TV critic, he is not really a reliable, credible professional anything. He is not a leading sci-fi authority, he is simply a well known Dr Who fan who has written some spin-off books. Also, there is no reason to include his review in the first place because the "Reception" section already has a pretty good cross-section of reviews, most of which are already positive. Another one (particularly from such a questionable source written on Blogspot) is what is known as "fancruft" (i.e. Torchwood fans filling the page with useless things in order to make the article look more like a fan page). Sorry people, but Miles' review just doesn't fly. GoldCoaster (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is yours to have, but I advise you to be careful with your comments. It's usually not wise to accuse other editors of being "biased" or writing "fancruft" (I can't hear that essay cited anymore...). Having a different opinion about the worth of such a review in the article does not mean that this opinion is "filling the page with useless things" or wanting to make it look like a "fan page". I personally would resent to be accused of being biased or doing such things and I think most others here will feel the same. Regards  So Why  20:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that doesn't stop it from being true though, and Miles' review is pretty much a textbook example of WP:FANCRUFT in its source, its content, and its inclusion. Cheers. GoldCoaster (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has just been restored after being deleted from the page some months ago. And, despite already failing WP:RS, Miles' review was recently restored to the article so I've removed it again. 88.104.22.117 (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The Midwich Cuckoos
I know this has been written in a reliable source, but I fail to see the similarity with The Midwich Cuckoos. Hektor (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aliens influencing children (birth and nature in Cuckoos/actions in Torchwood). Although, I think this series is much closer to Quatermass (TV serial).  But anyway, the critics probably chose to compare this to Midwich Cuckoos because it's the most well known alien-influenced-children story.  DonQuixote (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Metacritic
The article currently cites the Metacritic score at the top of the reviews section. However, all the reviews that make up the "metascore" are from US-based media, thus the metacritic rating only gives an idea of the programme's reception in the US, not in its native UK. Also, AFAICT, none of the reviews from which the metascore is calculated actually gave the programme a numerical rating, all the numerical ratings were assigned by metacritic editors who had read the reviews. Thus, it's questionable whether it makes much sense to cite either individual numerical ratings or the combined metascore, as these are as much indicative of what the metacritic editor thought of the review, as of what the reviewer though of the programme. IMO it would be better just to say "of 12 reviews, 11 were positive and one was mixed", and to make clear that these were all from US-based media outlets. Eljayess (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how Metacritic works. However, their grades are usually accepted project-wide as unbiased. The way we work around this is to inform readers in the articles themselves of how Metacritic arrives at its score. And yes, it does reflect US ratings, but I suppose that's okay anyway? I mean, it says that's what it does. It's not as if it's trying to mislead readers. Also, it shows a sort of "general" reception and it allows us to get a good summary of what constitutes the makeup of the various reviews, so we can mirror that balance somewhat. Are the citations from UK reviewers lacking? Perhaps. More Times, Guardian and whatnot could probably be done with.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 15:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)