Talk:Jack Harkness/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

2008 return

it says on the gallifreyone page that jack is returning in the next series, could someone definitely confirm this? --hello????? 12:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is. Barrowman himself confirmed it. Will ^(talk) 13:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Character History Continuity Error?

When Jack first appears in Doctor Who, he is named "Jack Harkness." But later in Torchwood, we find that his real name is James Harper and he picked up the name "Jack Harkness" during WWII. A Captain named "Jack Harkness" went out on a mission, was killed, and James (our Jack) assumed his identity.

But then, how did he come by the name "Jack Harkness" in Doctor Who? Jack, after he was finished with the Doctor and Rose, was left back in early Earth and had to live through its history to get to the present. Thus, he would have assumed the identity of "Jack Harkness" after he met the Doctor and Rose.

Now, it is true that Jack meets the Doctor and Rose during WWII but at that point in his timeline, he's still got his hypertech and isn't trying to blend in on Earth. He's merely using that point in time because he happens to know that on Date X, Time Y, a bomb will fall on location Z. He isn't interacting with any locals and has no need to assume anybody's identity.

So where did James really acquire the name of "Jack"? --Rrhain 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

His name was Jack in his first appearance, the writers retroactively revealed that Jack was not his true name. If that creates continuity errors, well, that's fiction for you. I'm sure someone could come up with a plausible explanation. Unless the writers have acknowledged this plot hole and commented on it in a published source, it wouldn't be relevant for us to discuss it in the article and any theories would be original research. You might want to ask over at the Doctor Who wiki, I think they allow fan speculation in articles.  Paul  730 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but I was hoping that somebody who is more slavishly devoted to following Torchwood than I might have a reference to the question of Jack's name and once we had a source, it could then be referenced. That's why I brought it up here. Ah well...off to the other site, then. Perhaps they'll know. --Rrhain 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In Jack's first appearance he is a member of the RAF and is deeply entrenched enough in life there to have a relationship with fellow officers. So I don't think it is accurate at all to say he "isn't trying to blend in on Earth." We have no way of knowing how long Jack spent in WWII prior to meeting the Doctor. I don't see any continuity problem or retcon. Queer Scout (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I just thought he assumed the name of Jack Harkness right before his first appearance, when the Doctor and Rose meet him in WWII. You say doesn't interact with any locals, but he is seen talking to several soldiers, and apparently is having a sexual relationship with one of them. Presumably he just created the Harkness identify for their benefit because he wanted to explore the era and shag people. :P  Paul  730 06:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No-where is there any evidence that "Jack Harper" is his real name anymore that "Jack Harkness" is. He started to stay "Jack Harkess" in CJH but realized he had to use something else as soon as he heard the real captain's name. "Harper" sounds close enough to "Harkness" that it wouldn't draw attention to the slip-up. That's the only reason he chose that name. 76.99.247.178 (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

However, the episode does reveal definitively that Jack Harkness is not the character's real name. This needs to be mentioned in the article, so I will add it now (it's worth noting the Jack Harper alias, too, but I agree it's not any sort of continuity error). 68.146.41.232 (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead probably isn't the place to go into that level of detail, but I agree it should be included in the article. Either that, or the currently unexplained and unsupported sentence in the lead that "his real name is unknown" should be removed.--Trystan (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a cotinuity error the empty child takes place after the true Captain Jack Harkness died, so he simply assumed the name and although it's slightly more complicated than that I hope you guys can see what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benv-b92 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the previous poster. The mistake he's making is that he's viewing the sequence of events from his own (presumably linear) time-line. To make sense of the order in which things happen to a time traveller you have to view things from the point of view of the time traveller himself. To the best of our knowledge based on the information presented to us by the two programmes, the character we know as Jack Harkness has lived during the early 1940s twice. That is to say, his personal time-line passes through that era twice (just as Rose's personal time-line passes through the day of her father's death three times). Jack first appears in the 1940 as a con man in "The Empty Child". At the end of "The Doctor Dances" he's transported in the TARDIS into the future where he's subsequently exterminated by the Daleks and resurrected by Rose. Abandoned on Satellite 5 he travels back in time by "jump starting his wrist device" but his aim is a bit off and he arrives on Earth in the late 19th century and has to live through the whole of the 20th century to get to when he wanted to be. Therefore, he has to live through the 1940s for a second time and could, had he been unaware of the dangers, have met himself with Rose and the Doctor in London during the blitz. Since he knows a bit about time travel he presumably kept well clear. However, with respect to his own personal time-line, Jack meets the real Jack Harkness and assumes his identity about seventy years or so after meeting Rose and the Doctor. Therefore I believe there is a continuity error... unless for some reason Jack had at some point on his personal time-line prior to the events of "The Empty Child" reason to visit Earth during the 1940s (perhaps during his service for the Time Agency?) and had observed his future self with the real Jack Harkness. That way he would know that at some point in his future he would assume that name and would presumably be cautious about using his true name from that point on. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

When Jack first met the Doctor and Rose he was a conman, pretending to be an RAF pilot (amongst other things). He adopted the name then, as part of his con, so he might have an Earth identity (how else did he get into the RAF officers' club?). No continuity error there. Gwinva (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand Jack's need to adopt an assumed name during that episode but I don't believe he would by coincidence choose the name of a man he was not to meet for at least another seventy years. Although "The Empty Child" and "Captain Jack Harkness" are both set in the 1940s the two events are separated on Jack's own personal time-line by over seventy years. Such are the complexities of time travel. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That was why he was so shocked to meet the real Jack Harkness. He chose the name quite casually from a list; 70 (or more) years later he meets the man; the drama of the episode is him coming to terms with the real man behind the name he stole. Gwinva (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's well over a hundred years for Jack between The Empty Child and Captain Jack Harkness, since he travels following The Parting of the Ways to 1869, then lives through the next 138 years until 2007. At that point, he and Toshiko are transported back to the 1940s. It's meant to be a surprising coincidence or twist of fate that he would run into his namesake who was doomed to die the next day, that's what drives the episode's story.--Trystan (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Gwinva and Trystan. The idea that "Jack" chose the name from a list of RAF officers some time before meeting Rose and the Doctor in "The Empty Child" and then, much later, was shocked by actually meeting the man, is extremely plausible and I'm satisfied with it as an explanation. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

James Harper is a bit too 20th century for a 51st century character:) Type 40 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

James Harper was never his real name, he just made it up because he didnt know what to say,

although there are issues i think with this, because in the series 2 finalé even his own brother calls him jack, why would he do that!?Harmless 77 (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe John told him. Or maybe it's just his surname that isn't Harkness.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's safe to say Gray found out Jack's alias from Captain John Hart. Digifiend (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Character History

I always come to Wikipedia for everything but I've given up on the Jack Harkness article. This is mostly because there is no "character history" part. It's a bunch of things that are useful, sure, but to find his history I have to read each and every part. I don't want to go through appearances, characterisation and critical reception to find out everything. Plus a lot is being left out, I'm guessing. I just don't care enough to read it all and check because his history isn't in one space, like Gwen's, Owen's, Toshiko's and Ianto's is. Even Adam, a character that appeared with the Ninth Doctor and Rose for just two episodes, has a character history - with a lot of detail for someone of such short screen time.

So. More or less, is there a chance there can be a character history spot? I don't remember enough to do it, which is why I look stuff up. - Babylon pride (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines on articles on fictional characters in Wikipedia emphasize the real-world significance and development of the character, and I think this article does a good job in presenting that sort of article. In-universe biographies and chronologies are more suited to fan sites. The Tardis Doctor Who wiki has a good article on Jack in that respect.[1]--Trystan (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not the first person to comment on this. As you can see here, the article used have a similar character history to the other Doctor Who/Torchwood pages you mentioned, as well as sections about his "powers" and romances. However, all of that is in-universe information, and was removed as part of an ongoing effort to bring the article to FA status. As Trystan said, the Tardis Wikia should have the info you're looking for.  Paul  730 13:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There is some character history, summarised. Episode-by-episode would require reading about those episodes, otherwise it's just bloat. The ultimate goal is that all Wikipedia articles will focus more on the real-world facts, and the Wikia ones will focus on the fictional universe information.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright. But here's the thing. Everyone from Torchwood (but Jack) has a history. Mickey, Donna, Martha, even Astrid who was there for just one episode has a history. Jack, who is the center of a show, doesn't have one. I can sort of understand for the Doctor. He has so many different actors but he has a background which is sort of a history, going about his past. Jack's is so behind-the-scenes and what not (like Alan-WK said) that it's hard to tell what he really is about. Say I wanted to find out who that friend of his was from Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang. There is no clear way to go through and find it. If I go to Mickey's page and I want to find out about his grandmother, I can clearly find out that he was left with her when he was young and was raised by her and she was blind. Later, she died by slipping on a damaged carpet he did not fix. Jack? I can't find anything simply and would have to do an internet search with the guy's name.

It's all behind the scenes, reception, magazine stuff. Which is great, but shouldn't just be the main article. Someone should be able to come who has no idea of who he is but heard about it from a friend and find out who he is, his past with both Doctors, and his past with Torchwood. Instead they find out how people like his portrayal by John Barrowman. Not really that helpful. I think once you've seen the show and become so accustomed to it, you forget that people use this site to try and see if they want to watch shows. I know I did that with Doctor Who, and Lost, and Heroes. If I had read Jack's page, I would've never wanted to see the show, so completely lost.

Also. Sending someone off to Tardis Wikia isn't really a wise choice. Isn't this page supposed to have everything? (It has everything for every other character, after all.) Plus that site doesn't exactly have that high of standards. - Babylon pride (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't meant to have everything, it's meant to be a general encyclopedia. The information need you are describing is very much a fan-oriented one, which is much better fulfilled by a fan-oriented wiki. Interwiki-ing works out best for everyone. As more and more of the in-universe description gets diverted away from Wikipedia to fan wikis such as The Tardis, their quality is improving by leaps and bounds.

As for the other character articles that you mention, they would ideally in time be brought up to the standard of this one.--Trystan (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, what Trystan said. Wikipedia isn't written for Doctor Who fans, it's not a biography on Jack and the level of in-universe detail that you're requesting isn't necessary. See WP:PLOT; the article isn't to provide story info for people who've missed an episode, it's to provide encyclopedic information on the creation, development, and reception on the character of Jack. If Jack's relationship with John is important to the character, it should have some real world context - was John created to explore Jack's past etc etc. We link to the Tardis Wikia because it serves a purpose Wikipedia doesn't and shouldn't. Just because other articles have too much plot doesn't mean this one should.  Paul  730 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're going to change about twenty other articles because you like this one? That's a bit pompous, I would say. Why don't you go around and change every character on Lost, on Heroes, on Supernatural and Doctor Who also? This isn't a standard. You're not including things. (And the other stuff exists thing? Really? Because I'd go with including them in the same family since they're all the same show and everything has more or less the same format except this one which, somehow, mutated into something of its own kind.)

You're making it more difficult for people. It would be very easy to just add a part at the top that says "Character History" and have the major key points of his background and what has happened in Doctor Who and Torchwood, since he is one of the very few to go between both shows. But that's not important either. And neither is trying to explain the character - just how he was created and what people think of him, but don't explain why he's bisexual, or what events in his life have happened to lead him to these points.

I'm not asking you to include story info. (Like I said, I would do it but I, one, don't remember enough and two, I can't word things correctly as I end up giving it a POV-edge sometimes.) I'm asking you to include things that coincide with him, like his love interest with Gwen, and the fact that he also loves Ianto, and had a five year but actually two week relationship with James Marster's character. It's a skim over of everything, telling what happened - both for people who don't know, and people who do and want to look it up. Whatever. Since you own apparently the article, do as you please. (: -Babylon pride (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To be short, all those articles mentioned are of poor quality by Wikipedia standards. No one owns the article, it's a case of not being able to enter the information if it doesn't in some way matter. For example, if it is commented upon in any format (Torchwood Declassified, a Companion book or annual, or an academic / widely-read article.) For example, if The New York Times or AfterElton.com discussed Jack's portrayal of a character who has lots of romantic relationships with multiple genders, then it goes in the characterisation section. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I know no one owns it but you're acting like you do. I just don't get how they're poor when I am positive that well over 90% of the character pages out there - about any show - have some sort of history, whether background or character history or what not. To have one that just involves people dealing with the character isn't about the character then, or at least not fully. A page about the character would have a page about the character. A page about Nikki and Paulo or Jack Sparrow, both featured articles mind you, have appearances in there. Appearances, like Jack's, tells you what went on in their life. Only it doesn't skim over it - it tells you in vivid detail. Jack Sparrow's goes on for six very long paragraph, and has such vivid detail such as, "This time, however, Sparrow discovers that the rum runners had abandoned the island. Elizabeth uses the rum to start a fire, and the pair are rescued by the British Royal Navy." But it isn't important, right? All I'm saying is you leave out so much, because you don't have anything about his old Time Agent friend, or anything about Estelle - who was such a major part of his life apparently. It's just missing a lot before it can become a featured article and that's what every article is intended to be, right?-Babylon pride (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of Jack Sparrow - there are also some Star Wars FAs which have detailed plot sections - which is why I'm wondering whether you have a point. I've asked User:Bignole, whose opinion I value, what he thinks and he said Jack Sparrow may be overly detailed but isn't certain about Jack Harkness. The problem about including stuff about John is that he only first appeared last Wednesday, we don't know how much of a role he'll actually have in the long run. Estelle wasn't that notable - she was important to Jack, sure, but the problem with in-universe perspective is that what's important to the fictional character isn't always notable in the real world. You end up giving undue weight to a minor aspect of the show. A fictional biography/character history is in-universe, and would fall victim to the problems listed at the link above, especially with a characer who's past is as convoluted as Jack's. We shouldn't have a character history, nor the "vivid detail" of Jack Sparrow, but I'm wondering whether slightly more detail in the appearances section is neccessary or not.  Paul  730 23:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We had a whole run of stripping the article to barebones in-universe stuff, due to there being a perception it was misbalanced against the OOU stuff. The problem with Jack, is that rather than appear in 66 episode of Buffy, then 100-and-something of Angel with crossovers, Jack sort of intersects smaller 13-episode series of shows which do not air concurrently. Therefore the paragraphing structure has the potential to get out of hand (I remember someone adding 4 paragraphs about "Utopia".) With some of the Buffy characters, you have the potential to summarise character by season. As Jack has only appeared in Doctor Who in 8 episodes and Torchwood in 14 (so far) you have to consider the long term stability of the article as more backstory gets revealed. The first article of Jack's "televison" section does have room to expand on his backstory - although it may be a safer bet to wait for the reveals about "Grey" and John Hart and others to come out in the show first.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention like I wanted to in my last comment. The amount of Jack Sparrow's detail is a bit too much. If there was that much, along with everything else which is very useful I do admit, it would be overpowering and just frankly long. But as long as you both agree - or even slightly agree - that more detail needs to go in.

I do understand how it can become one-episode orientated though. Utopia could be skimmed over though, and just facts would be needed. Like who John (that's his name? That's what I came to look up originally and got pissed off that it wasn't here) is, and that he had a love interest with Estelle - even if it's mentioned briefly in less than a sentence. Things can be skimmed over, but the facts, at least the bare facts, need to be there in my opinion. At least we've come to some sort of agreement. Finally. (: - Babylon pride (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) Zythe is right that Jack has only been around for about three years and 22 episodes, so a huge appearances section isn't really appropiate. Also, whereas Buffy and Angel have big season-spanning story arcs that are easily summarised, Doctor Who and Torchwood are more monster of the week, so you run the risk of it becoming "Jack fought this alien, then he fought that alien, then he... blah blah". To avoid violating WP:IN-U, if we were discussing Jack's bachstory, we would have to discuss it in the manner and order it was presented in the show, not the order it occured in in the fictional continuity. But still, the article isn't all that long and is largely out-of-universe information. Zythe, do you think we should have a little more detail in the appearances section? Perhaps about who Gwen and Ianto are, and his relationship to them? This source (which was in the old version of the article linked above, but was removed for some reason) discusses the Jack/Gwen thing, so a little context in the article might not hurt.  Paul  730 23:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Tidy

• "Jack's character history is presented simultaneously in the two television series as well as through flashbacks and exposition which relay his backstory, events of his earlier life." -- name the shows, as this is the beginning of the first section of the article, and if "events of his earlier life" is the same thing as "backstory" then just end the sentence with "backstory". If it isn't, then add "and" after the comma.
• "These events detail that Jack is initially a 51st century "Time Agent"[1] (although what a Time Agent does remains unclear), a former prisoner of war,[2] and later a con artist with lost memories and a stolen name." -- Needs to be tightened. There's no need for the "un"explainationi of "Time Agent", as I see that it has a link to a page, so I assume it's explained there. What do you mean "former prisoner of war"? Does he remember being a prisoner of war, or did he wake up with the knowledge that he once was, but just doesn't remember the details? Because you're already talking about his "former" life, the "former" in the "former prisoner of war" isn't necessary because we already know what he currently is.
• "The decision behind Jack's absence in the 2006 series was so that the effects of the Doctor's regeneration on Rose could be explored." -- I'd move this to the next paragraph, right after the first sentence.
• "First airing in 2006, Jack returned as the star of spin-off series Torchwood (in which he appears in every episode), now leading Torchwood, a Cardiff-based organisation dedicated to protecting Britain from alien threats." -- "in which he appears in every episode" is not necessary, that's implied when you say he's the "star of the series". Reword the last bit to say something more like, "...,leading the Cardiff-based organisation Torchwood that is dedicated to ..." The two times you use the word "Torchwood" in that sentence were just a little too close to each other.
• "In the series, Jack is a changed man,[8] having become immortal after his resurrection and then waiting on Earth for the Doctor since the 19th century." -- This is awkward sounding. The end statement seems tacked on, and with little context.
• "Despite having worked with him for some time, his present-day colleagues know very little about him." -- This just seems out of place for this section. I don't know if it's meant to illustrate the clouded backstory of Jack, which not even his team knows about. Maybe it needs context as to why it's relevant that his team don't know that much about him, because one could say that about a lot of "real" captains in tv shows.

Based on what I've read regarding the television appearances, and how much of the article is devoted to the IU information, I can see you fleshing that section out a little more. When I read it, it seemed a little weak in being about to correlate what happened to him in the show. I think maybe too much was cut from what was originally there before the article was cleaned up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to fix the problems you mention and add a little more detail... what do you think? Is there any crucial info missing, and does the info there make sense? One think I don't agree with you about is moving "The decision behind Jack's absence in the 2006 series was so that the effects of the Doctor's regeneration on Rose could be explored." to the next paragraph - keeping it next to the moment where he was written out of the show makes sense to me.  Paul  730 16:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason I suggested moving it is because there is no indication that he was or wasn't coming back to Doctor Who. You have added context to the statement now, so it makes better sense as to why it sits there.

• This statement--"These events detail that Jack is initially a 51st century "Time Agent",[1] a prisoner of war,[2] and later a con artist with lost memories and a stolen name."--should probably be reworded a bit more. Since I don't know the character I'm only guessing, but I assume that he was initially a Time Agent, then he became a prisoner of war, and most recently (before Torchwood) he became a con artist. Otherwise, it reads like he was all those things at the same time.
  • And this?
    • I was trying to think of a way to reword it and got sidetracked... those details about his past are revealed in different episodes, and the order they're revealed don't corropsond (sp?) to their chronological order. He was a POW, then a Time Agent, then a con man. But from our perspective, it's revealed he is a Time Agent, con man, then POW. I dunno, these things are offscreen and so vague. Except the con man thing, he was introduced as a con man.  Paul  730 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • How about, "The events reveal that Jack was once a prisoner of war, and later a 51st century Time Agent, before being introduced on Doctor Who as a con artist." ??  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, done.  Paul  730 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• The "shot dead" could probably be replaced with simply "killed". "Shot dead" just sounds odd, at least it does to me.
  • I would end the sentence after Daleks, and start a new one with "Rose", or maybe use a semicolon to separate the two independent clauses.
    • Both done.  Paul  730 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Would "The character returned in 2006 as the star of his own spin-off series, title Torchwood,..." be a better beginning of the next paragraph? We already know his name is Jack (well, known as Jack).
  • Done.  Paul  730 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• "spent years on Earth to reunite with the Doctor." -- Should this be, "spent years on Earth waiting to reunite.."??
  • Sorry, must have removed that word when I was copy editing.  Paul  730 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• "Jack recruits policewoman Gwen Cooper to his team, and there are hints of romance between them,[10] as well as between Jack and existing employee Ianto Jones." - I'd maybe put a semi-colon after "team" and start the new clause with "there". These are really two independent statements that are connected to each other.
  • Done.  Paul  730 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• "Series 1 finale "End of Days" uses the sound of the Doctor's TARDIS to foreshadow the character's return to Doctor Who." -- Could you explain this? I don't understand what you mean by "uses the sound of the TARDIS".
  • The TARDIS makes a "voop voop voop" noise when it arrives and departs, this is heard in the TW series finale to signal the return of the Doctor. How should that be reworded, do you think?
    • "Voop voop voop"?? lol. Anyway, when does it make the noise? I'm trying to get a feel of context as to how that noise is supposed to trigger the foreshadowing of the doctor. Did Jack hear it, was it played at the end of the episode? If Jack heard it, did he make some remark that indicated it was foreshadowed? I ask this because the source is the episode itself, so if it said it explicitely then it's ok, but if this is based off of knowing the sound of TARDIS then we need a better source.
      • The TARDIS noise is iconic, plus Jack's "Doctor detector" machine went off. They don't explicitly mention the Doctor or the TARDIS, but Jack heard it and ran out of the building, then his friends were like "He's gone!" Here's the scene - it's been edited to include DW footage, so the scenes actually showing the TARDIS/Doctor weren't in the TW episode (sorry, I couldn't find the scene by itself, it's probably just going to confuse you even more...). I dunno, it probably wouldn't be too hard to find a source sayig it was foreshadowing if it's really a problem.  Paul  730 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Reading it, I don't see it as pertinent to understanding the situation. It could be just as simple to say that the Doctor returns, with his new companion, Martha" and then explain things as they go from there. If the doctor doesn't return until after "Utopia", then it should be mentioned after that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Nope, the Doctor appears in "Utopia", that's the big reunion exposition episode. I've removed the TARDIS/foreshadowing stuff per your request.  Paul  730 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• "in which Jack reunites with the Doctor and meets his new companion, Martha." -- The Doctor's new companion, or Jack's new companion? If it's Jack's then it's fine, if it's the Doctor's then I'd remove "meets" as "new" indicates that Jack probably doesn't know her.
  • The Doctor's companion. I'll fix it.  Paul  730 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• "...shows Jack learning the origin of his immortality and reveals how he returned from Satellite 5 to the present day; by travelling to 1869 via vortex manipulator and living throughout the entire 20th century." -- not the place for a semi-colon, as the second statement is a dependent clause, there's no subject. Either the second part needs to be reworded to be a complete sentence, or the whole statement reworded to remove the semicolon.
  • I fixed that already, I think?  Paul  730 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I took care of some other things myself, but not what I have up here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking good. Does anything else need to be explained? I'm not the authority on the subject, so I can't read this and go "hey, what about this?" Oh, and I had no trouble reading through it and staying on track with the information, given his time travelling nature. But, I think you have room to expand a bit more, if you need to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

5094?

In the Series 2 Torchwood episode Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, Captain John Hart says to Jack "Rear of the year, 5094". Can we assume from that comment that Jack comes from sometime in the 5090's just to narrow it down slightly? – Alan-WK (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so you wrote this months ago, but I'm still gonna hug you, 'cause so few sites/people seemed to notice this comment, and as soon as I heard it, I thought, "Yes, we can narrow it down to the Middle - Late 5000's and not the Early - Middle 5000's"...so thank you [User: Stripey]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.87.132 (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be hard to work it into his backstory without it being a bit speccy/in-universe. I think maybe after all of Torchwood series 2 has aired, and they've delved further into the character's backstory, we can more effectively start incorporating that information.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that in the upcoming episode Adam (Torchwood), there is a huge "delving into Jack's past sequence" and I imagine that, seeing as they have such a specific year in which his rear was so highly acclaimed, there may be some more definitive dating. Clockwork Apricot (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

He would have to be from the late 51st century, because Magnus Greel's work with Zygma beams is also in the 51st century, and that was a dead-end as far as time travel was concerned. Yes, it worked, but it disrupted DNA and could cause some sort of implosion, if I remember "The Talons of Wiang Chang" Lochlyn.Christante (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Jack's Family

How come there is no mention of Jack's family in the article, including Jack's brother Grey and his father (Franklyn?). Leo (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There's not even a mention of the Boeshane Peninsula, and that's not even new information. ^anemone│_projectors 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added info about Gray, Jack's dad, and the Boeshane Penninsula, since "Adam" depicted all three in a fair ammount of onscreen detail and they are all quite significant to Jack as a character. My only concern is that the name "Boeshane Penninsula" is confusing and meaningless to non-fans, a bit of rewording might be needed. Does it read okay?  Paul  730 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You have called the Boeshane Peninsula "alien", but there's no reason to assume it is not located on earth. TharkunColl (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, I'll fix that. Isn't Jack confirmed to be an alien though? Didn't John Barrowman confirm that somewhere?  Paul  730 23:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

When Jack first appeared, he told Rose he was "mostly human" I seem to remember. TharkunColl (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul, what do you think about giving the article a "background" section, separate from Appearances to clearly define what we know about the character? I'm afraid that following the out-of-universe format may confuse readers.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Where were you thinking of putting it? Hmm, normally I'm not a fan of in-universe "biographies" for characters (at least not on Wikipedia, they're great on Wikia) but given Jack's rather confusing history, it might actually make sense to have something like that to clarify backstory. Provided it's kept in summary form and doesn't become full of trivial information. Yeah, go ahead if you think it's necessary to provide clarity.  Paul  730 14:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Would "backstory" or "background" work as a subsection of Appearances or require its own (small) section just before it?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, with the exception of the "Adam" flashbacks, not much of Jack's backstory has actually appeared onscreen, so Appearances might not be appropiate. You're probably right that it should be a separate section just before Appearances, having it afterwards might defeat the purpose of making things less confusing.  Paul  730 12:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Background" or "backstory"?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Backstory" Sounds more fictional IMO.  Paul  730 13:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So we should make that section purposefully more in-universe to contrast with the Appearances/out-of-univers section? As long as it doesn't get into a comic booky "publication history" vs "fictional character biography" (ugh) format then I'm fine with it. Off to work now, change as necesssary. Then we'll work on the lead and nominate FA again.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what that was made its own section. You took information from the Appearances section and just added a couple of sentences. Why exactly couldn't those sentences have gone in his television appearance section?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

They weren't actual appearances (except for last ep, which had flashbacks). All the stuff about the Time Agency and being a prisoner of war were exposition through dialogue. To put them in an appearances section implies (to me, at least) that they were depicted onscreen. Why, do you not think the section needs to exist?  Paul  730 18:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

But where did the exposition take place? Was it in a television episode, or was it in an interview with the creators? Even if exposition doesn't actually appear on screen, but is simple narration, it's still an "appearance" on television. If a narrator said that Jason wasn't cremated, as originally said in a scene from A New Beginning, but was buried by his father...that would still fall under film appearances, because it occurred on film. If these events occurred on a television episode then that is where they should be listed. If they occurred in literature (which I don't believe, since the sources listed next to them are episode citations), then you'd put it on literature. The section is redundant because you're basically summarizing events from the television series--even if they weren't literally "seen" on screen--and then immediately starting a new section to talk about his appearances on TV. It should all be there, just simply identified as "through exposition in episode X, it is revealed that .... ".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole that everything should be included under "Appearances". I think the best approach to ensuring that the character is discussed as an object of the narrative is to describe his character development in the context in which it was presented. This is what the "Appearances" section does, following the chronology of the presentation and not of the fictional universe; it has been a particular strength of the article. I don't find the "Appearances" section unclear; it does lack the biographical approach that would be more appropriate in a fan wiki, but that's unavoidable (and undesirable) when working under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.--Trystan (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(EC) The section was created to draw a line between present day events actually happening onscreen, and backstory exposition, to clarify the potentially confusing continuity. Making it an entirely separate section was my idea I believe because I didn't think exposition counted as an "appearance". How about making the background section a subsection of "appearances" then?  Paul  730 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that the in-u format should be avoided on Wikipedia, and I agree that this article is stronger for doing that, but the concern was that the constant revelations about Jack's past would make for confusing reading. We never wanted to return to the "Character history" layout, just try to make sense of Jack's backstory.  Paul  730 19:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be confusing if you list things in the order in which they are presented on screen. Even if the events depicted take place in the past, through exposition, it doesn't change the fact that they were presented in the present. I don't see where any confusion is when I read the section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I was mostly just trying to appease.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

bisexual?

Didn't the Doctor call him Omnisexual? He's do it with anything that moves?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's covered in the article. See the quote box. We call him bi in the lead section for simplicity - non-fans may not know what "omnisexual" means. He's basically bisexual, omnisexual is just some sci fi Torchwood term.  Paul  730 12:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither term is used within the series. There's a quote where Barrowman and Davies explain that "omnisexual" as a term only works within the science fiction context; Jack is otherwise a bisexual character. Anything that moves does seem rather hyperbolic, applied mostly outside the series by commentators. While its true of Captain John, we've yet to see Jack lust after poodles. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the term "pansexual" be more appropriate, then? --76.66.17.118 (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Popeurban

Not really. What's so pan by real-world usage of the term?

"[H]e’s bisexual, but in the realm of the show, we call him omnisexual, because on the show, [the characters] also have sex with aliens who take human form, and sex with male-male, women-women, all sorts of combinations." - John Barrowman.

The whole pansexuality aspect is sort of limited, and somewhat unexplored. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The real-world usage refers to people who don't have a sexuality that is limited to just the the typical gender binary of male and female, but also intersex individuals. I think. They may or may not be an intersex individual themselves. --GracieLizzie (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it's sort of a ... side step. "Omnisexual" used in the context of Jack, means "bisexual with aliens", as it explicitly states in two sourced (the quoted one, and the Canadian Press one).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This article incorrectly states (in two locations) that Jack is the first "non-heterosexual character in the history of televised Doctor Who". This statement is incorrect as Cassandra indicates that she was a boy on earth and has had husbands (see Cassandra (Doctor Who) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

As a side note, I apologize for the manner in which I provided this information before as I had not really intended to be involved in the process of maintaining this article but dropped a comment into the article for it to be updated by a regular editor / moderator but found that it was edited out over two updates without the information being corrected. I hope that this attempt for correction is better received. Also I am not sure if this “note” is appropriate either but figure it can be removed if not appropriate.

PAMJR (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiya PAMJR. No worries! This note is lovely. I felt the context of the original quote implied that, at the very least, Jack is the first main character in the televised Doctor Who to be explicitly confirmed to be non-heterosexual. Cassandra's off-hand reference to being trans was a milestone, but very much one for the average fan. Jack has been the first character for whom this has been of any notability (as one editor specified with an ammendment "in the mainstream press".) My take on the subject -- and I may be wrong -- is that because lead sections have to be written in a particular way, nitpicky details can (and should) be overlooked. These paragraphs are intended to be a highly-accessible introduction to the article. What are your thoughts? Do you think it manages that? I'd like to hear from you. Please keep editing! Yours, ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

How appropriate is it for a programme aimed mainly at children to promote homosexuality/pansexuality or whatever you call it. Or sexuality of any type?JohnC (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not aimed at children at all, SJA is aimed at children, Doctor Who is aimed at families, Torchwood is aimed at adults. And it no more promotes homosexuality than every other show on TV promotes heterosexuality. PoisonedPigeon (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

JohnC, please put your populist morality elsewhere. Above all else, Wikipedia is not a forum. Isn't there a Doctor Who forum bemoaning the gay agenda you can chime in on?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Real Name?

I'm sure this would have been picked up by now if he did, but I could swear that in Adam, Jack's father called him something (Sith or similar) in his vision in the sewer. So what did he say? U-Mos (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the dialogue is pretty much "Run, son, run!". The episode was constructed in a way that the characters real name was not revealed at any point in the flashbacks or hallucinations. Indisciplined (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I heard that his real name was revealed in a more recent episode. Is this true? Type 40 (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No. It seems rather unlikely that CJH's birth name will ever be revealed, let alone any time soon. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

New Doctor Who

Do we have any details about which new episodes Jack will be in? Type 40 (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Unconfirmed, but it seems to be the unnamed episode 12 and episode 13 Journey's End. Digifiend (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Stray backstory note

No longer feels relevant given the extensive information about how Jack joined Torchwood. I'd love to be able to find a source (Torchwood Magazine?) about Jack's various romances, so we could include some mention of Estelle, Jack's ex-wife, and his various other exes. But anyway,

Other episodes allude to Jack having been once had a wife, and having been a traveling circus performer, and in some capacity as an special operative in the 1920s.

Oh well.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack/Gwen vs Jack/Ianto

The following sentence appears in the "Television" section of this article: Jack and Ianto both begin to publicly recognise their relationship, despite Jack promising Gwen she is the reason he returned to Cardiff. I don't think this is sufficiently NPOV, since the exact nature of Jack's feelings towards Gwen and Ianto respectively is extremely ambiguous and one of the most controversial topics in the Torchwood fandom. While it is true that Jack told Gwen something along the lines of "The only thing that kept me fighting was the thought of coming back to you," in a previous scene he told Ianto "I came back for you," and then widened the statement to include the whole team. It is unclear if Jack's line to Gwen is meant to refer to only her, or to the Torchwood team in general. I am not trying to deny that Jack has feelings for Gwen, I am merely pointing out that it is never explicitly stated that Gwen is the sole reason Jack returned to Cardiff, or that he cares for her more than he cares for Ianto. Celsiana (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the line, feeling it was supported by the Eve Myles interview where she discusses the "temptation that Jack proves for Gwen." I tried to describe it neutrally, so as not to insinuate either that "Gwen is the sole reason Jack returned to Cardiff, or that he cares for her more than he cares for Ianto." A later line in the characteristics section even notes "Jack also appears to harbour romantic feelings for two of his employees, Gwen and Ianto, telling them both that they were the reason he returned to Cardiff, and asking Ianto on a date.[20] ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do keep in mind NOR, which means that the purpose of discussions like this, on talk pages, is not to decide what to put in the articles: it is to arrive at better and more practical ideas about what to search for, when you go off WP to gather reliable sources on what the consensus is or the major schools of thot are.

(And that's aside from the question of whether the actor's interview reflects

-- the director's consistent schema of the interactions, or

-- the director's instructions to that actor, designed to get her to come across as close as possible to what the director wants, visually and audibly, or

-- even the insult the actor wants to deliver to the director for presuming to tell her how to practice her craft.

Do you know the story about Olivier's scheme for delivering his off-stage scream, as Oedipus plucked his own eyes out? He wasn't imaging the character's state of mind at all, he was thinking about ermine trying to lick salt off of ice, and being killed after becoming immobilized when their tongues freezing to the ice.

Or recall the conflicting and shifting accounts by Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford, about what Deckard's state of mind was.

Start from the fact that drama depends on illusion.)
--Jerzy•t 07:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what evidence is there at all that Jack is talking to Gwen when he says "I came back for you," given that the camera angle immediately returns to Ianto, making no suggestion Jack was looking at Gwen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.35.47 (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The scene where Jack finds out Gwen got engaged.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Titling

_ _ The navigational scheme of

1. Jack Harkness explaining in lead that he is Captain JH,
2. the section List of Torchwood minor characters#Captain Jack Harkness, and
3. the Rdr Captain Jack Harkness ==> Jack Harkness

could probably not, without outright lying, be better designed to raise the barriers to getting acquainted with the two series.
_ _ If i weren't aware of the intensity of the fanbase involved, i'd probably have simply made the following changes:

1. current Jack Harkness renamed to Jack Harkness (time lord)
2. current Jack Harkness (disambiguation) renamed to Jack Harkness
3. current Captain Jack Harkness (now a Rdr to the time lord) ==> 3-way Dab (two fic-chars, one episode)
4. optionally, new Jack Harkness (RAF), with content #REDIRECT List of Torchwood minor characters#Captain Jack Harkness

I'm not questioning the earlier decision to give the time lord the title Jack Harkness (despite the apparent former pre-eminence of the footballer), but i'm arguing that the writers have thrown WP (if not the fans) what Yanks call "a real curve ball", and that the new circumstances make a new approach to page-naming worthwhile.
_ _ As it is, i'm just turning this analysis over to the most WP-savvy of the fans, and hoping you can make it clear to the rest why such a change will benefit the fans' efforts twd WP coverage worthy of the topics. If there are no admins among you, and you can reach a consensus, consider trying me first with a request for the housekeeping delete(s) that will surely be involved, since i may be the closest to being up to speed in advance.
--Jerzy•t 06:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Bit of a problem - Captain Jack is not a Time Lord, is he? (If he was, the Doctor wouldn't be the Last of the Time lords). As it stands, I think it is fine, concurring with WP:DISAMBIG - Weebiloobil (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that links to Jack Harkness (the lead character played by John Barrowman) dwarf in number the links to any of the other uses, I think it is appropriate to occupy its current position as the primary article. By extension, I think that Captain Jack Harkness is also appropriately redirected here. I've had a go at clarifying the dismabig notice on this article; the prior wording focused on "Captain Jack Harkess" and thus exluded the people looking for the footballer.--Trystan (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Biography and Age section additions

I disagree with the addition of the new biography and age sections to the article. The in-universe biography has been proposed above, and I think the general consensus still remains against it. It essentially restates what appears later in the article, only without context appropriate to describing fiction.

Trying to calculate his age is a fundamentally speculative enterprise. We know almost nothing about his life before he meets the Doctor, and there are significant gaps after that. Do we count the amount of time he spent 'dead'? Frozen? It all goes far too afield from simply describing how the show portrays him as a fictional character.--Trystan (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's covered to sufficient detail in Appearances, any further detail does not belong on Wikipedia in the first place. Speculating about Jack's age would also be pointless. We're going for FA here, not Good Article Review.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is all I have on Jack's age to date. A brief mention that he is over 2,000 years old may be in order. - LA @ 20:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Event	Years
2 week time loop with John Hart	5
memories erased	2
from 1869* arrival from 200,100 to present (1869 AD to 2008 AD)	139
Series 1	1
with Doctor during the Master incident	1
Series 2	1
Buried alive (27 AD to 1901 AD)	1874
Cryostasis (1901 AD to 2008 AD)	107
Total	2130

• 1869 is when the Doctor and Rose were in Cardiff with Dickens.

There is Category:Fictional centenarians in place, but I wouldn't know where to find a decent source to discuss this. There's no Paul Cornell-penned academic guides to Torchwood yet.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 09:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Portrayed by" in infobox

Do we want to include the very brief flashback portrayal by Jack Montgomery in the infobox? It's really a minor footnote, and the infobox should be focused on summarizing key facts.--Trystan (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, John Barrowman plays Jack. The child actor should be noted in the article, certainly, but it's not significant enough for the infobox. Maybe include an editors note as well to deter good faith edits putting the info back in?  Paul  730 23:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem removing it.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Race?

So it seems this guy is human, not a Timelord? --arny (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. Jack is human. Although, Rose did inadvertantly make him nigh-immortal. DonQuixote (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What made you think he might be a timelord? Jasca Ducato (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps his powers and frequent time travels... obviously I didn't get the story right. --arny (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Article length

Someone needs to downsize this article. I couldn't even read it, it was jam-packed in a bad way!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.73.141 (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

To paraphrase Amadeus, which parts would you like us to remove? It's long-ish, but there is a lot to cover with this character, given the amount of critical attention he has received. I think the article is quite concise, and clearly organized. If you have any more specific suggestions for improvement, they are most welcome.--Trystan (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Why 1869?

The article doesn't explain why he used the vortex manipulator to return there and not to our present (which was what he wanted). Is it on purpose or just because it's hard to pinpoint the vortex manipulator (if it's the latter, he could have landed in the future and miss the Doctor)? -62.219.97.10 (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall the specific episode or wording, but I have a recollection to him having explained that he'd intended to go back in time but "overshot" his destination and ended up even further back than he'd aimed for. Perhaps someone else can remember more specifics or re-watch the end of season 3 to see if it was in one of those episodes. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 15:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Utopia. Right after they reach the end of the universe, Jack says he over shot it. I just watched that episode before coming here!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.188.112 (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

His former Chula Spacecraft

According to List of Doctor Who vehicles#Chula Spacecraft, it is a time machine ship and not just a space ship. I mean, the whole point was that he used it to travel to the past, wasn't it? -62.219.97.10 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Title of the page

How come this fictional character gets preference over the name "Jack Harkness", while the real life Jack Harkness, is regulated to a disambiguation? Also, the Torchwood episode, "Captain Jack Harkness" should not be disambiguated ("Torchwood episode"). No other page on Wikipedia shares that title, thus the redirect to this article should be removed and the episode page should be moved to the unambiguated title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason that James T. Kirk the character is given preference over James T. Kirk the real person...or James Bond the character over James Bond the ornithologist. As to why Captain Jack Harness the episode is disambiguated, there's a Captain Jack Harkness which redirects to this page. DonQuixote (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

James T. Kirk and James Bond have been around a hell of a lot longer to gain a more universal recognition than Jack Harkness. That being said, I would still question what evidence there is that statistically someone is going to search more for those names over the real life people.

I know there is a redirect here, hence why I said that it should be removed and the episode page should be moved there. That is not how redirects work. What should have been done is that the episode (if it is notable at all...I don't know, I didn't look at it) should have been given that title in the first place, with a link at the top saying, "This is the page on the Torchwood episode, for other uses see Jack Harkness (disambiguation)".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The stats say that the page for the fictional character was viewed 29,490 times in September, while the footballer was viewed 88 times. Sounds like a primary topic to me.

The redirect is less clear-cut, but I still think that the current situation is correct. The character is very widely known as Captain Jack or Captain Jack Harkness, and I think it's more likely that someone who typed "Captain Jack Harkness" into the search box would be looking for the character than the episode. Also, WP:TV-NC says, "Where an episode title is the same as a character or object from the series which has its own page, disambiguate further using the word "episode"." It doesn't say "Where an episode title is the same as the article for a character or object from the series..." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That is why you put a link at the top of the episode page telling the reader that if they are looking for the character he's on another page. You cannot jump straight to "Torchwood episode" when there are no other pages that have the name "Captain Jack Harkness", that isn't how naming conventions work. The episode is the only Wikipedia topic with that name. Otherwise, why wouldn't the title of this page be "Captain Jack Harkness"? Probably the same reason why "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" does not redirect to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see the arguments on both sides of that one. Probably best to put it through WP:RM.

You do agree that the stats are fairly conclusive that the character is the primary topic, though? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I concede the Jack Harkness primary topic argument. You cannot compete with 88 hits. As for the Torchwood episode. If there is agreement here, we don't need RM. A speedy deletion of the redirect page (removing the redirect itself won't work, the coding is still there), and then simply moving the episode article over is all that is needed. WP:RM can take a week (or weeks...given how many articles I see backlogged on that page right now). We can spend a fraction of that time determining if the page should be moved, and then just doing it ourselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from more editors before we delete the redirect. If there's an actual consensus, I won't stand in the way, but I think that the guideline can be read either way. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like more opinions as well, but the guideline is for when articles share the same title. This page does not share that title. Either this page is "Captain Jack Harkness", or it isn't and the "Captain Jack Harkness" should go to an article that has that title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a bit of a mess. I'd like to see Jack Harkness (the caracter) stay here, and the episode moved to Captain Jack Harkness, both with proper DABs at the top. — Edokter • Talk • 12:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. DonQuixote (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As you can see above, I was in favour of keeping the Captain Jack Harkness redirect to this page, but I think now it does probably make more sense to move the article there. It would, if nothing else, allow us to simplify our tortuously worded disambig notice on this page.

We'll have to clean up some links, since there are a few dozen pages which link to Captain Jack Harkness which will need to be updated to point directly here.--Trystan (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Looks like a consensus to me — if people want, I can take care of this later tonight. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I've checked all the links that were pointing towards Captain Jack Harkness, and changed all the ones that were for the character to point to Jack Harkness instead. I've also moved the episode to Captain Jack Harkness, and fixed a double redirect. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Great work!  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Background Changes

I noticed that information that I added (then was removed, then added, then removed again) was taken down. The basic statement about it, I could understand. There was a large amount of information, some of it a bit detailed. The lack of information on Trace Memory altogether is still disconcerting to me as there is so much revealed in there.

Also, the change of terminology about Jack being a freelance agent versus an uncontracted agent was less about the term freelance and more about the fact that it says that he was 'contracted as a freelance agent.' I feel that there is a large difference between the two.

I'd like at least some of this to be reconsidered for being either re-posted completely or paraphrased and re-posted. Estel (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit the main reason I reverted you was because you undid Zythe without an edit summary, and, having collaborated with him on articles before, I trust his judgement more than yours. (Sorry, just being honest.) I'm not bothered about the freelance/uncontracted debate, but I do agree with the removal of trivial plot details. We're trying to keep plot info brief and accessible, and don't need to hear every trivial detail of Jack's backstory. We should, however, summarise the general plot of Trace Memory if it's relevant to Jack.  Paul  730 23:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honest as well, then. I don't often do work on wikipedia, but Jack Harkness is a subject I know a fair deal about. I got carried away with the details, I'll admit. I feel strongly that the change to uncontracted is important, including that it is on the show as such (briefly as it is). Also, the section on Twilight Streets contains similar content that should be equally considered. If the literary section is going to be as brief as you seem to want it to be, then perhaps that should be at least reformatted as well. I was more than a bit annoyed that everything I have ever added to wikipedia has been undone or deleted, and should have come here first, I've just never posted to a talk page before.

I would like to help out on this article and so I want to see all parties involved in agreement. Thanks guys, and sorry again! Estel (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I reverted your edits without leaving you a talk page message to explain why I did it. I was going over them, and given when Trace Memory was released (pre-"Fragments") it would make sense to add some brief summary of it along with the mention of the relevant bits from Twilight Streets. The reason that novel is mentioned is only because it infers Jack was working with Torchwood for a long time before we met him in "Everything Changes" and because it clarifies the "Boom Town" paradox.

It does need reworking a bit, agreed. I'll explain why it currently looks that way. To give a 'real world' perspective of the novels, as one would with a TV series, I've grouped them in the waves they were released and with the release dates they came with. However, the problem with that is each novel has its own writer, plot, etc and therefore it takes up a lot of room if we are to acknowledge them. Perhaps a better way would be to link to List of Torchwood novels and audio books and describe when each set were released and then any relevant information from particular novels in that set, without linking them all and naming each author.

Because Jack appears in lots of kinds of literature (comics, novels, internet), I've felt I've had to put relevent information to characterisation with the original mention of the medium. However, with the Ianto Jones article it has been laid out so that a paragraph which discusses how these novels have leant to Ianto's characterisation comes later and draws from both the novels and comic books. If you want, I've got a Torchwood rewrites section in my userspace if you'd like to help work on bettering the articles without disrupting the main article too much before we're done (as I often find I have to keep changing what I've written).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Paul and Estel, how would you feel about a more detailed backstory paragraph in the "Development" section? One large paragraph to more overtly to discuss the slow build for the audience of how Jack's development occurred. I may even have an academic article which discusses how how "Utopia" in contrast to the first season of Torchwood reflects differing audience expectations for character development.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds okay so long as it doesn't devolve into in-universe trivia. It shouldn't read like a "Backstory" biography, but then you already know that. :) As for the novels' summarisation, I'm wondering if we need to mention the authors... we don't mention the episode writers, do we? Any author info should already be in the citation, and on the novel's article/list. It would probably be a more productive use of space to focus on Jack's development in the novel rather than who wrote it... a little plot won't hurt so long as it is brief and relevant to the character.  Paul  730 15:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it would be better to wait until academic sources / commentaries describe character development in a relevant way, rather than trying to summarize it in an IU way.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Murderer category

Is it really appropriate to put Jack in the category of fictional murderers? It doesn't appear to fit the guidelines of Wikipedia:CAT. It's not a very notable characteristic of him that he killed the guy who killed Owen, basically out of revenge. His alleged murders are barely mentioned in the article, failing the guideline on how the subject should be discussed at length in the article before the category is added. As a Torchwood leader, doesn't he probably have a liscence to kill anyway? -- AvatarMN (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. Categories are usually for characters whose primary characteristic is described by said category. Jack isn't a murderer per se, he's an agent character who has committed murder in the line of duty. Think James Bond, or arguably the Doctor DonQuixote (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The category has a startling number of unuseful entries. People use categories to browse related articles, there are so many characters listed who murdered or even arguably murdered only once, and in a way that didn't much change them or the story. This cat probably wouldn't be much use to one desiring to read articles about fictional murderers as it stands now. -- AvatarMN (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)