Talk:Torchwood

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#FICTION shows how we write about fictional characters. --Rodhullandemu 18:05, 10 September 2008 (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. _TalkIslander 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)

Torchwood series 3: Children of Earth

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cast and Crew

There seem to be several problems with the table noting the cast of Torchwood (I mean the one part way down the article, not the infobox); I currently note:

- Harkness is listed as 2006 to present, but Ianto Jones is listed as 2006 to 2009; however Children of Earth implies that both have left
- Listing present is a bit odd anyway, as the article may date
- Martha is listed as 'Guest medical officer', which isn't really a role at all...
- No reference is made to the radio plays
- Martha is listed, but Suzie is not - however Suzie was definitely billed as a starring role
- Cooper is listed as second in command, but at one point Harper was second in command, this is not mentioned

I suggest that as most of the information is more accurately described in the text, this table be removed and a separate article (similar to, but possibly better organised than the List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel cast and crew) is written detailing who was starring, guest starring, and so on. PoisonedPigeon (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's see what I can answer from those:

• We have no sources that told us Harkness has left the show, so there is no reason to change that. Jones on the other hand was killed on-screen and can as such be presumed to be not returning.
• If the article dates, the listings are changed accordingly.
• Says who? She was credited in reliable sources, which is what is important for inclusion.
• Actually, they are mentioned under "Spin-offs".
• If I recall correctly, Suzie is never billed as a starring role in the first episode, is she?
• Cooper is "second in command" as of aforementioned "present". Harper's stint as second in command is mentioned on Owen Harper accordingly.

We have articles for all major characters anyway, so the table just serves as a quick access to those articles. List of Torchwood characters has a complete overview. I do not think the Buffy/Angel list is comparable to Torchwood though, they have a much more changing cast that needs a different list style. Regards SoWhy 09:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Indira Varma (Suzie) WAS given full credit on the first episode; this was to not tip off the casual viewer about the twist on her character at the end of that episode. Radagast (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Bryan Dick (Adam Smith) was credited in the opening titles in "Adam" - also due to the nature of his character in the episode Etron81 (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is the case (I cannot remember), we need some reliable sources that state why those opening title credits are unlike the others. Yes, we know why they did it but we need a source to write it in the article. Regards SoWhy 21:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, he didn't appear. Just rewatched DBD 22:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Series 4?

Series 4 is far from confirmed, despite a few sites jumping the gun with their selective quoting. The quote in question is:

"It's too early," Davies said. "We haven't even sat down for meetings on (the new season) yet."

That can also be taken as RTD saying that no decision has been made. He is also quoted on the TheStar.com as saying "I do hope we can keep that going," Davies affirms. "It's not commissioned yet ... I really hope it will come back in some shape or form."

Way too early to say for sure that it has been given the green light. magnius (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The later quote I posted today has TV Squad say "It was a huge ratings success in the U.K. and fared well on BBC American in the U.S. So, the Beeb is giving it a longer run."~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read a few quotes, from various sources, and not one has directly implied that the fourth series has been given the go ahead. I'm sure that there will be a fourth series, but just like the "The End of Time" title, I can't help but see a lot of wishful thinking and misreading. If there is a consensus that the quote is a confirmation, then I am happy to go along with its addition, I'd just be happier with an RTD quote saying that it's been confirmed in a far less ambiguous manner. magnius (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Direct from the BBC:

"Although there's no announcement about Torchwood's future, its creator was hopeful we'll see it return. Fingers crossed!" magnius (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)