Talk:Torchwood: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:03, 10 March 2014

Torchwood was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 19, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Torchwood article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 30 days

Torchwood received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Torchwood. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Torchwood at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Doctor Who: Torchwood Top‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Torchwood task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

BBC Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Template:WikiProject British TV shows

Television

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Science Fiction Mid‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Cardiff Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cardiff, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cardiff-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CardiffWikipedia:WikiProject CardiffTemplate:WikiProject CardiffCardiff
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Torchwood appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 October 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Torchwood will be the first spin-off from Doctor Who since an unsuccessful pilot for K-9 and Company in 1981?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2005/October.

Wikipedia

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Ended for 'personal reasons?'

I think the most notable thing about Torchwood was the fact they managed to derail and destroy one of the most watched TV series' in history. There are countless primary and secondary sources supporting this. 13 episodes, 13 episodes, mini series, mini series. You tell me where the ratings plummeted. ;) Not to mention they kept screwing the time slots and changed the format of the show entirely and took freakin' years between each season, it went from a TV series to two mini series' with one banal narrative across each. But the article doesn't mention anything but it being on permanent hiatus due to personal reasons; which is kind of unbecoming of any article when the details are public knowledge. Just hoping the editors of this article could pick up their game and realistically address the fact this was a lesson of how to destroy a #1 global franchise, because Doctor Who is following the same tac, especially with the years between seasons and changed time slots. It's ratings are also taking a similar hit, and I can foresee it dropping off the radar again because people just can't be arsed watching a show on TV when they stuff around like that and instead will just download it. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Torchwood wasn't as popular as you seem to state. But your opinion as to why it ended is original research and conjecture; Wikipedia cannot assert its own theories, only report what reliable sources say in a manner which gives due weighting. The fact that it underwent budget-driven format changes is mentioned, as was the critical reception of all the series, so readers can conclude what they like.Zythe (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twaddle

Thorchwood is twaddle. This ought to be stated. 86.155.0.186 (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 I think the most notable thing about Torchwood was the fact they managed to derail and destroy one of the most watched TV series' in history. There are countless primary and secondary sources supporting this. 13 episodes, 13 episodes, mini series, mini series. You tell me where the ratings plummeted. ;) Not to mention they kept screwing the time slots and changed the format of the show entirely and took freakin' years between each season, it went from a TV series to two mini series' with one banal narrative across each. But the article doesn't mention anything but it being on permanent hiatus due to personal reasons; which is kind of unbecoming of any article when the details are public knowledge. Just hoping the editors of this article could pick up their game and realistically address the fact this was a lesson of how to destroy a #1 global franchise, because Doctor Who is following the same tac, especially with the years between seasons and changed time slots. It's ratings are also taking a similar hit, and I can foresee it dropping off the radar again because people just can't be arsed watching a show on TV when they stuff around like that and instead will just download it. [[User:BaSH PR0MPT|BaSH PR0MPT]] ([[User talk:BaSH PR0MPT|talk]]) 23:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
+:Torchwood wasn't as popular as you seem to state. But your opinion as to why it ended is original research and conjecture; Wikipedia cannot assert its own theories, only report what reliable sources say in a manner which gives due weighting. The fact that it underwent budget-driven format changes is mentioned, as was the critical reception of all the series, so readers can conclude what they like.[[User:Zythe|Zythe]] ([[User talk:Zythe|talk]]) 10:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 == Twaddle ==