Talk:List of Torchwood episodes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Summaries

Is there a copyright concern in lifting the summaries verbatim from the BBC site, or am I being paranoid? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you're right. It's a blatant copyviolation and should either be rewritten or removed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. I'll rewrite them at my next opportunity. Radagast 14:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Hope they pass muster. Radagast 18:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Stub articles?

We had stub articles for the 2006 DW episodes long before we had a complete list of titles. Is the plan to create articles as they are broadcast? --Billpg 10:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We were able to do that because DW's production was being watched far more closely, so we had sufficient information. Torchwood is a bit of a different animal; I think it's fine to create the articles as the episodes air. Radagast 14:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, would it be worth renaming the article for the "Captain Jack Harkness" episode to have a "(Torchwood episode)" suffix, rather than just "(Torchwood)", in the same way that the Dalek episode from last year was named "Dalek (Doctor Who episode)". --Billpg 10:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Either that, or put a disambiguation notice at the top of the article (once it's made). Radagast 14:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

When we do make the articles, remember that according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Episode articles we shouldn't put the (Torchwood) disambiguation after a title if there would otherwise be no Wikipedia page for it. The first episode should be at Everything Changes, not Everything Changes (Torchwood), but the second should be at Day One (Torchwood), since there are other meanings of Day One. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, strike that example: it turns out that there are a couple of songs called "Everything Changes", so Everything Changes should probably be a disambiguation page. But episode 4 should be at Cyberwoman, not Cyberwoman (Torchwood). (I don't think there are any other meanings of "Cyberwoman", do you?) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. More seriously, there were several cyberwomen in Doctor Who, including Jackie and the leader of Torchwood 1. Its conceivable someone might start an article on them. --Nantonos 20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC).

Infoboxes

Should Torchwood have its own infobox? Template:Doctorwhobox might work, as the only field not appropriate to Torchwood (Doctor=) is optional. Laïka 15:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the Doctorwho one would suffice, although it doesnt gave teh capabilities to place an episode screen capture in the box its self, or does it? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Article names

I noticed a couple of comments about the article names, above: Going by WP naming conventions, articles should be at Episode Name if the name is unique, or Episode Name (Torchwood episode) if they are not. -- Chuq 00:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and made this point above. There is unlikely to be another article at Invisible Eugene or Countrycide; therefore, that's where the episode articles should be. We should avoid unnecessary disambiguation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: the examples given at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Episode articles are Bart the Fink and The Sting (Futurama). Following that model, we should have Cyberwoman and Small Worlds (Torchwood). I don't think that specifying "Torchwood episode" is necessary, except in cases like Captain Jack Harkness (Torchwood episode) when the (Torchwood) disambiguation isn't necessarily sufficient. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Consistency among articles is paramount, and the precendant seems to support appending a suffix for consist. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with FireFox) What precedent would that be? Certainly not the precedent of Doctor Who episode articles. We have The Keys of Marinus and Marco Polo (Doctor Who), Rose (Doctor Who) and The Unquiet Dead. This has been discussed by the Doctor Who WikiProject here, and a prior consensus held that in this case a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As per the Doctor Who series specifically, I believe article names should be at the actual episode name if possible, otherwise it should have (Torchwood) at the end, per Chuq above. — FireFox (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2006

There is a very clear precedent for consistent suffixes at Category:Star Trek episodes, which in my mind looks clean and professional. Though I'd agree that the Torchwood community should decide for itself what is the most consistent way to handle episode titles here. --Elonka 23:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an equally clear precedent for disambiguating only when necessary at Category:Doctor Who serials, which is surely more closely related. (Although Torchwood is a different series, I think it would be odd to have one standard for Doctor Who episodes and another for Torchwood episodes.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions poll

There is an ongoing poll and Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC Episode Article Naming conventions which has direct relevance to how to title the Torchwood episode articles. All interested editors are therefore strongly encouraged to participate, to ensure that your wishes are incorporated into the consensus process. --Elonka 22:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to bring this to more attention, really. In the Simpsons Wikiproject there's something about changing all names with other meanings to something like: The Front (The Simpsons episode). By this it would be like Ghost Machine (Torchwood episode). What do other people think?--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 17:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there's no real reason to disambiguate "Ghost Machine (Torchwood)" to "Ghost Machine (Torchwood episode)" unless there's already an article called "Ghost Machine (Torchwood)", in the same way that there'd be no need for the "(Torchwood)" suffix if there wasn't another article named "Ghost Machine". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Episode 8

Is now called They Keep Killing Suzie[1][2].--GracieLizzie 18:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I like it less than the more subtle They Keep Killing as I think it sounds a bit silly. --GracieLizzie 19:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The episode title is inspired by Doomwatch DavidFarmbrough 17:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's inspired by The Avengers episode 'They Keep Killing Steed' (@)

Actually it isn't inspired by anything until you can cite it ;-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

New Episode Titles?

This Is Torchwood and Meat Eater replace the titles of Invisible Eugene and Combat? Confirmation of this? Clockwork Apricot 22:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Images

I was just bold and added the screenshots to this list, revert if you don't like it but I thought it looked good! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we can avoid it, I deliberately didn't add screen capture cells when I created it as I believe we can avoid it ;-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Aww go on. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The cells just look messy with images though... thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Awwwwww go on..... (ó_ò) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to revert me.. I'm not interested in warring over this.. but I wont self revert as my opinion sticks.. I've stated my opinion that I really don't think we have to/need to.. and my opinion is it looks better without. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hehe ok then. I was just being silly before. I won't revert you. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Aww, they look great... then again I think all episode lists should be like this *cough*Doctor Who*cough* :-p --Codenamecuckoo 10:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Greeks Bearing Gifts was also the title of an [InspectorMorse] episode

Okay, and your point is? :P Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Titles/order

The newest posting of Torchwood This Week has a couple new bits: Invisible Eugene is now titled Random Shoes; as well, Combat has been swapped into the Episode 10 slot, Out of Time up to # 11.

I'd adjust this in the list but I can't seem to find a corroborating source. Any thoughts? Radagast 19:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since those episodes are just a few weeks away, we can amend this listing as they air. DonQuixote 20:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My EPG is telling me its now Random Shoes instead of Invisible Eugene. It doesn't yet mention Combat and Out of Time so I'm unsure about them. --Riche 21:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Radio Times magazine says it's 'Invisible Eugene' while the website claims 'Random Shoes'. Personally I prefer the original. (@)

Out of Time appears to be before Combat in my EPG now. --Riche 22:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Series 2

Should we go ahead and add the table for series two with all the information unknown (similar, to some extent, to what we have for Doctor Who Series 3/Season 29 on the List of Doctor Who serials)? Or should we wait till some more information (e.g. writers etc) are announced. --GracieLizzie 16:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Episode by episode as information becomes available from the BBC. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Has a second series even been announced yet? Slimeknight 17:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Last two episodes...air dates?

Where is the source for Captain Jack Harkness and End of Days being both broadcast on the 1st January 2007? --Riche 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We could mention the radio times christmas special as a source, it seems to back up the dates and info posted here Willow177 13:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So Captain Jack Harkness and End of Days are being shown on a Monday rather than a Sunday like the rest? ≈ Seraph 15:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

yep, your right seraph, and like combat, its a 21.30 start, unlike the rest of the series Willow177 18:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. My EPG is now telling me the same. --Riche 22:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of images

There's a discussion about the inclusion of images in this list here; all editors of this page and/or interested parties are welcome to join. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to create precedent disallowing individual episodes

There is discussion at WP:AN/I#Fancruft_issue_again, and an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man that is attempting to create a precedent disallowing individual episodes. Matthew 18:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

-- Ned Scott 18:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Origional Research

I've taken out all origional research, if you want to put new information in source it! Wiggstar69 12:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Exiting Worlds"

I ran into Exiting Worlds (Torchwood episode), and tagged, wrote a lead for it and sorted it accordingly. I have no knowledge of whether it's accurate or not, and do not want to link it to the list without sourching, but I wanted to bring it to someone's attention with an interest in the series. --Agamemnon2 11:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Some sources would be nice indeed. I couldn't find anythin searching for "Exiting Worlds Torchwood", so I'm starting to think this title is a fan-wank. As a side note, I've moved it to Exiting Worlds (Torchwood). — Edokter • Talk • 19:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty convinced now this is a fan-wank. So unless there are any objections, I'm going to slap a speedy tag on it tomorrow. — Edokter • Talk • 18:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed "Exiting Worlds" from the list and prodded Exiting Worlds (Torchwood), as it is apparrent there is no evidence this will be the Series 2 premiere episode title. Please correct me if I'm wrong. — Edokter • Talk • 12:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The prod was removed, so it is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exiting Worlds (Torchwood). — Edokter • Talk • 20:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the speedy reactions, guys, I figured I'd best leave judgements on the article to aficionados (as I'm about a season behind on my Doctor Who, so I can't go looking for sources for fear of spoilers.) --Agamemnon2 12:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

More DWM rumors

Can someone confirm this? I thought DWM 389 is yet to be released. — Edokter • Talk • 19:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Series 2 table

The series 2 table looks empty and contains much information avalable elsewhere on the page, it wont be long until the names of each of the episodes will be avalable, then we can make one, but we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves.--Wiggs 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We already had consensus on the project page to allow the table, especially since the premiere is so very close, we can as well leave the table for now. And the information "elsewhere" was originally in the table before you copied it into the writers section. — Edokter • Talk • 21:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've warmed to the idea, its not really doing much harm although its still pretty empty, (its nice to see a reliable ref for kkbb).--Wiggs (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

opening episode

On an article about episode 1 (speedy deleted because it was a duplicate), someone put the following as a synopsis - "Captain John appears through the Rift under Cardiff looking for Captain Jack not only does he disrupt Captain Jack's homecoming but also the whole team, city and world are suddenly placed in danger." Do we have any source for this? StuartDD _{contributions} 11:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I thaught this was on the recent BBC press release, i've cerntantly have read that somewhere on a reliable website, but I wasn't the one to add that.--Wiggs (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

yes it's on the torchwood site - I've added it with a reference. StuartDD _{contributions} 11:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Somethings not right here...

In the writers column for series 2 we have 4 by Chris Chibnall and one by Helen Raynor, but the writers sectiion below the table states that it is 3 for Chibnall and 2 for Raynor. Can someone check these entries please. StuartDD _{contributions} 21:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I was aware we knew all the writers, but not the order of them from episode 2.7 on.--Wiggs (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I managed to pick up DWM 390 in the shop, so I'll match the writers with that. StuartDD _{contributions} 15:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The table now matched DWM 390 - with the adition of the opening episode which must have come after this was written. Also, Martha's 3 episodes are confirmed as 6 to 8. StuartDD _{contributions} 15:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, episode 9 is "TBA by TBA" in the latest DWM. I assume that the IP placing "Phil Ford" used the BBC press office reference stating he will be a writer. StuartDD _{contributions} 11:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection?

There have been a rediculous number of IP edits adding air-dates without a source. Is it time to ask for semi-protection? StuartDD _{contributions} 15:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just ask... — Edokter • Talk • 16:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Unforunately it was declined. StuartDD _{contributions} 19:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Short episode summaries poll

What's everyone's view on putting short episode summaries along the lines of the following. I was going to be bold and then thought that I didn't want to waste all that effort!

Precendents: List of Secret Army episodes, List of Only Fools and Horses episodes and (urgh) List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes

No	Episode Name	Production Code	Writer	Director	Original Airdate
01	"Everything Changes"	1.1	Russell T. Davies	Brian Kelly	22 October, 2006
Police Constable Gwen Cooper comes across the mysterious organisation known as Torchwood. While investigating their world, she finds technology and methods she never imagined. Suzie Costello betrays her colleagues when she shoots Jack in the head, thus revealing his immortality. Gwen then accepts Jack's offer of a job at Torchwood.
02	"Day One"	1.2	Chris Chibnall	Brian Kelly	22 October, 2006
Gwen's first day on the job sees Cardiff's nightlife at the mercy of an alien who consumes its victims during orgasm leaving behind dust. Torchwood tracks the alien to a sperm bank, but too late for the patrons within. Gwen and Jack trick it into leaving its host and captures it within a portable cell, where it peters out, itself turning to dust.

etc etc --D^EADLY∀_SSASSIN 06:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but I don't think we should do that - I think it distrupts the table. StuartDD _{contributions} 12:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate the new table... sorry. While it may be in linewith TV MoS, it breaks consistency with List of Doctor Who serials. I'd much rather have the old table back, which was easier to edit as well. — Edokter • Talk • 13:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with Edokter - it doesn't look as good - epecially as the TBA's are in bold. StuartDD _{contributions} 16:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, up to you, it's your article.--Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 00:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It not anybody's article. It was a good idea, I just didn't think it looked good with the TBA's and the unlinked titles in bold. StuartDD _{contributions} 15:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

John Hart in more than one episode?

The trailer shown at the end of episode one shows John Hart saying a line ("is that all you people think about?") which was not in "Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang", which suggests he'll be in at least one more story before the series is out. Kelvingreen (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure will appear in more episodes, but we don't know for how many and which episodes yet. — Edokter • Talk • 21:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

repeat dates

Do we know when the repeats will be. Most of the sources (like BBC press office) say the next day, but my guide doesn't have the repeat down for tomorrow. It is possible that this is a Socttish thing (In Scotland, BBC 2 on Thursday is manly Gaelic programmes) and that it will be shown another time. Do other schedules have it down for tomorrow? StuartDD _{contributions} 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, my (Dutch) TV guide has the pre-watershed repeat listed for tomorrow (thursday), followed by Torchwood Declassified. BBC also has full listings online, or check radiotimes.co.uk. — Edokter • Talk • 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, must just be a different day in Scotland. StuartDD _{contributions} 22:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no repeats for the edited Torchwood or any showing for Declassified in Scotland or Northern Ireland. They are replaced by local programming. Passing Scottish Bloke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.8.38 (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

2009

In the artical it states the unconfirmed series - if confirmed - will air in 2009, is this sourced or just assumed.--Wiggs (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Just assumed I guess. No way of telling when it will air. — Edokter • Talk • 14:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Article just got updated, seems theres only five episodes next year! The source was American though. Digifiend (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Now confirmed by ITV Teletext. Digifiend (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Viewing figures

Do we really need the viewing figures for the series? I don't think that it is that important. If we are having them, Brief History provides the viewing figures on the episode pages, and is probably a better reference to use. StuartDD _{contributions} 14:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, they're not really needed, and already covered in the episode articles. — Edokter • Talk • 15:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There's another problem that has arrisen with the viewing figures. From "Reset" onwards new episodes are shown on BBC 3 first and then BBC 2 the next week which will impact on the viewing figures. So are we to show the viewing firgures for BBC 2 (which will be higher), BBC 3 (lower), both or get rid of the viewing figures altogether? yettie0711 (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why adding the ratings is a bad idea in the first place. Since BBC3 isn't a terrestrial channel, ratings are in no way representative, especially compared to the BBC2 ratings. I'm much for removing them alltogether. — Edokter • Talk • 00:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I say remove the figures. StuartDD _{contributions} 10:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "out"

Please note that "out" in the title "From out of the Rain" should not be capitalised. "(From) out (of)" is a (composite) preposition and as such should be in lower case. Many sources mistakenly capitalise "out", but unless the producers of Torchwood confirm this as intended, standard capitalisation should be followed. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) for more information. Thank you. — Edokter • Talk • 00:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The BBC has the episode listed with the capitalisation, as I already pointed out to you. Therefore it is the official title (whether grammatical or not). Source is bbc.co.uk. Starhunterfan (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continued at From out of the Rain#Capitalisation of "out" and User talk:Edokter#Torchwood/From out of the rain. — Edokter • Talk • 01:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Headers

I just noticed that someone came in behind me and redid the very redundant header of "Torchwood episdoes." The title of this article is List of Torchwood episodes, so we do not need a header saying, again, that this is a list of Torchwood episodes. The seasons/series should be first level headers, not second. Look at other episode lists, and most will reflect the change I made. Let's discuss, since I really do not want a revert struggle to come from this. - LA @ 08:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not quite redundant; it's a level-2 header which in turn has the induvidual series under level-3 headers; it's how list articles are organized in the Doctor Who project. See also List of Doctor Who serials and List of The Sarah Jane Adventures episodes. In fact, we try to do things a little bit different the other TV articles. — Edokter • Talk • 09:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Episode count

Love the new design but.. 21 episodes in Series 1 and 23 in Series 2? Is this a mistake? Even when counting spin-off media, the episode count doesn't reach that number. Shall I go ahead and change? Clockwork Apricot (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'm excited, it's way too... playfull? Wikipedia is about content, not so much design. Follow the lead of List of Doctor Who serials, which is a featured list. — Edokter • Talk • 22:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

^^; I was following List of Smallville episodes. Sorry... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, are we removing the colours or toning them down? Seems to be the latter... '''[[User:WBOSITG|<font color="darkblue">weburiedoursecrets</font>]][[User talk:WBOSITG|<font color="navy">inthegarden</font>]]''' (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Waiting for some more feedback. PS, Your sig seems broken. Did you check "raw signature"? — Edokter • Talk • 14:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh =P I think you're the fifth today? I changed it now because of a complaint =( weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Martha not in series 3

The Sun uses the words "she was ditched" - that implies she didn't choose to leave, she was sacked. Somebody might want to reword it. I've simply added the Sun article as a link (and second source) for now. Digifiend (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Sun is not a reliable source for anything and has been noticably wrong more then once with storys on Freema - claiming she was fired from Doctor Who with no support backing this up - then she was in series 4 and Torchwood, reliable sources are the BBC, newspapers (not tabloids), RTD and DWM.--Wiggs (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Series 3 episode table

Isnt it a bit early to have an episode table for series 3. The earliest the series will be shown is April 2009 which is 8 months off. Should it be removed or kept there for future references. (90.205.46.50 (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

I thought it was a bit early, but I think it does show the writers better than the prose did. We will need it later, and leaving it will save effort when more information comes out. Edgepedia (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel compelled to remind folks in the northern hemisphere that the season of Spring (as in Spring 2009) is at a different time of year on my side of the equator... --ozzmosis (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I do take your point Ossmosis, but what else do you suggest. If you look at the seasons article you will also see that around the tropics the seasons are wet and dry ... completely different! However, Spring is what the source says, so anything else would be OR, and besides it will broadcast in the UK when it's spring here. If you have a reference as to when it will be shown downunder, by all means add it ... a lot of these Doctor Who articles have a UK bias and it would be good to get feedback from other countries. Edgepedia (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

radio episode

On September 10, BBC Radio 4 will broadcast a 45-minute Torchwood episode, which Martha will also be in. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/08_august/07/cern2.shtml -- scroll down, it's there.) Should this be added to the article? 71.223.146.227 (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to the page. Edgepedia (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool - I would have done it but didn't trust myself with the formatting for the table. It did occur to me, though, that the radio broadcast might not necessarily be considered canon (I think the various Doctor Who radio plays from over the years aren't). 71.223.146.227 (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a radio episode belongs here. It counts as an audio drama.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an exception, as it is specifically announced as a "radio episode" that premieres on radio, not an audioplay that they sell on CD. — Edokter • Talk • 22:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a large difference between an audioplay, which is a drama involving the actors from the TV drama, and a audionovel, a reading of the narrative from a book. Even if both are available on a CD. Edgepedia (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

But regardless, this is a list of Torchwood episodes, and without better sourcing this should be regarded as something ancillary.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 09:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the comment about sourcing - there's links to the BBC available. I think it fits better on this page ... being a torchwood drama, starring the 'usual' cast ... rather than List of Torchwood_novels and audio books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgepedia (talk • contribs) 09:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I mean, source it as an episode. Sure, it's a radio drama special, but it's not like it's a television episode as part of a season or a television special. Even whether or not it's 'canon' is debatable. A similar example, for a while editors were adding "Buffy Season Eight" stories to the List of Buffy episodes, but they're a totally different medium.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me one possible solution would be to change the title of List of Torchwood novels and audio books to List of Torchwood spinoff media or something similar, create a category for radio on that page, and remove the information here. I see someone has added info on the radio play to the novels and audio books article, but it's in the introduction, which seems awkward. I am the OP, incidentally... one of these days I need to make myself a proper Wikipedia account... 206.21.141.61 (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Change 'audio books' to 'audio drama'; same medium.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

An audio book is not an audio drama; these are completely different. We have the books and audio books on one page, and the TV episodes on this one. I was considering the pros and cons before coming back here, but sorry Zythe that last comment irked me somewhat. Here we have a special which is unusal. I think the idea of canon is unencylopedic, and besides please see Whoniverse#Inclusion_and_canonicity for a discussion of 'canon' and Doctor Who. (remembering to sign this time) Edgepedia (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and it is particularly irrelevant to Doctor Who. But it IS of a different medium and is therefore considered ancillary. Sorry if I offended you, I assumed a drama in an audio medium would also be considered an audio drama. I am not calling 'radio drama' the same as audibook, but surely both are forms of audio drama?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We are trying to draw a link on a continuum, to call things "black" and "white" when they are really shades of grey. We have the following forms:

book/novel Words on paper/computer screen

audiobook (sic) At a minimum a book read out loud. The narrator will add dramatic effects in the pace, tone and express feelings using the voice.

audiodrama A number of actors in a studio playing parts using their voices. Dramatic effects by the interaction between voices. Audio FX.

video A number of actors playing parts using their voices and bodies. Dramatic effects by the interaction of voices and bodies and the way the camera is used. Locations, sets and backdrops. Video and Audio FX.

A strong argument is that the audiodrama is a spin-off. However it does involve the actors playing their parts they play on screen. Here we have (currently) a unique offering and I think we need to list it somewhere so that it's listed so that the information is not lost, and can be easily found. Edgepedia (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead and added a sentence about the uncertain canonicity to the article, similar to the sort of disclaimer used in other Doctor Who articles when mentioning material from spinoffs. I don't think this is a debate that can really be resolved. (OP again, this time with a proper username!) Meadowlark527 (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Canon is a fan issue. The point I'm making is that a Radio episode of Torchwood isn't an "episode of Torchwood" in the conventional sense.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But it is announced as an "episode"; they never did that with any other audio drama. — Edokter • Talk • 23:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it was intended for broadcast rather than direct sales. That doesn't make it the same as a TV episode, does it?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but it does signify continuity with the TV show. — Edokter • Talk • 14:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but say if a comic book issue of Torchwood was promoted as a canon "episode", we wouldn't include it in a list of episodes.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to come with unrealistic scenario's. It deserves to be listed both here and on the list of Torchwood audios. — Edokter • Talk • 15:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Episode Summary

Sorry I didn't discuss changing the page here first. I came to the episode page because I wanted to have a quick list of what each episode was about - going to each episode page is just a bit annoying when all I want is a summary.

I would think that quite a few people use the list of episodes for the same reason which is why I went through and added a summary without changing any of the other details.

I thought it had added value to the page and am a little unsure as to what the problem with it was?

P.S don't know if this is the right way to start a discussion about it I'm new to this

137.205.27.118 (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Radio drama again

Sorry to raise this again, but it's been announced that three Torchwood Afternoon Plays are to be broadcast prior to "Children of Men" [3]. Now, since there's a series of them, it's kind of hard to call them "specials", so I don't know how one could add them to the page. And when it comes down to it, we don't list Doctor Who audio dramas in List of Doctor Who episodes, even the ones that were made for BBC radio (Slipback, the two Third Doctor ones, and the Eighth Doctor and Lucie stories). Daibhid C (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Doctor Who audio series have their own pages, just because of the sheer volume. I think for now we can list audio drama's here. — Edokter • Talk • 23:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is the 2008 audio a "radio special" but the 2009 ones are "radio plays" - it even says in 2008 that it was BBC Radio 4's Afternoon *Play*?

Not sure why these can't be grouped together like Series 1 - becuase that spans two years?

Why have the edits in the paragraph above the 2009 radio play's been reverted? 'Lost Souls' is first mentioned here so should be linked, "3" should be "three" etc.

Also, if the Dates for Series 3 are 2009, and this is bridging the gap between Series 2 and 3, then surely they have to air *before* Series 3. Since we are *in* 2009 now, the logical conclusion is that these audio plays *must* be aired sometime in 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.175.207 (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

BBC Week 27

As the schedules released today have Children of Earth as unplaced in BBC Week 27 (4-10 July 2009), should we make note of that in the list somehow? Etron81 (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this weeks Radio Times makes mention of Children of Earth airing 6-10 July (see scans here) - I'd add it, but I do not have a copy of this issue, and woudl feel odd citing RT from a scan on a blog - does anyone else have this issue? Etron81 (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just come back from a visit to the shops and Radio Times is not yet on display where I live. I've a feeling the BBC website will be updated with the dates by end of today. Edgepedia (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Table view

Almost every episode list her on wikipedia uses a different 'look'. Only the main episode list for doctor who doesn't use this (from all the episode lists I have seen). But the individual series lists use the 'regular' view; Season 2 (Season 3). And this view is a better setup for when someone wants to add plot-lines for the episodes. Xeworlebi (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The view was chosen by consensus and has been like it is for around a year. weburiedourdramainthegarden 09:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Any reason for it to be completely different from the rest of episode lists? It might have been like this for years, that doesn't mean it can't be improved. Xeworlebi (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No idea. I just remember being shouted at a bit for trying to change it ages ago. I think this is likely Doctor Who's precedent and I wouldn't worry about it.  GARDEN  says no to drama 10:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead to short

Okey, what is going on with the removal of this valid tag? The lead contains almost no informations, it is to short it doesn't even say what the show is about, who's in it etc. these are things that should be in the lead for an episode list. Either fix the issue at hand or leave the tag in place, thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 06:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to add something, add it. However, this article is a list of episodes and not an article about the series in general.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes this is an episode list and as such it should contain the basic info of the show, what it's about, who's in it etc. go see some of the FA/FL episode list. If you don't want to add anything then don't but don't remove a valid maintenance tag. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 06:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've lost interest in this mundane topic and won't remove the tag if you re-add it. Is there a reason why you consistently misspell "too"??--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No there isn't. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 07:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If you think the lead's too short, fix it.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  07:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance tags are valid ways of pointing out problems with the article, by that logic all tags should be deleted and replaced with a the notice "just fix it yourself". I don't have to do anything, if someone wants to remove a valid tag it is up to them to resolve the issue before doing so. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 07:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers?

Can I remind everyone in the UK and the rest of the world that Torchwood will be showing in the US today, ahead of the BBC. If spoilers disturb you can I suggest that you take the Torchwood articles off your watchlist, as Wikipedia is not censored and will reflect what's available in reliable sources world-wide. Edgepedia (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Torchwood: Web of Lies?

The article claims it's a web-based story - but [4][5] suggests it's only available for the small proportion of people with an IPhone or IPad (!), rather than using open standards like the web, or supporting the vast range of other (including more popular) platforms - and apparently only for people in the US too. Can anyone confirm [6], and should the article be updated? Mdwh (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Starz Ratings

How should we display the Starz ratings? Currently we have the combined viewership for the first two broadcasts (10 PM and 11 PM on Friday night). When I changed it to the initial broadcast only, people changed it back. When I changed it to the weekend combined viewership (first four broadcasts), someone changed it back again. The important thing is that we keep it consistent and we note what the number actually means. I don't see what the problem with using the initial broadcasts would be? Isn't that what's usually done? That, along with the combined weekend viewership, are the easiest numbers to find. We could put the combined weekend viewership in parenthesis, and the premiere night broadcasts viewership in brackets if people really want that. We could also consider including online and on-demand figures, if we can find them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisible Green (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The ratings is usually always the combined figure for the first day of broadcast. On national networks, ratings for both airings of the same show on the east- and west coast are always combined. Starz does not have seperate channels to do that, so it simply airs the show twice on the same channel back-to-back. This is the figure we should be using. — Edokter (talk) — 10:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Edokter, I'm not sure you know a lot about American television programming. You said, "On national networks, ratings for both airings of the same show on the east- and west coast are always combined. Starz does not have seperate channels to do that, so it simply airs the show twice on the same channel back-to-back." What are you talking about? Honestly, I can't even follow your logic. Starz is broadcasting Miracle Day twice in ALL timezones. On Friday nights it airs once at 10 ET/9 CT/10 MT/9 PT, and then they rerun it immediately afterward. Like broadcast networks, the west coast (MT/PT) feed is two hours behind the east coast (ET/CT) feed, but the national ratings do combine all time zones. The 10 PM ET broadcast is distinct from the 11 PM ET broadcast. This is not unusual; pretty much any cable channel (basic or premium) reruns their original programs multiple times, often immediately after the initial broadcast. The first broadcast is the most watched, and therefore should be singularly counted. Combining multiple broadcasts, whether from the same night or across the weekend, without noting so artificially inflates the ratings. Although, because Starz is a premium cable channel, all subscribers can watch the program on demand or online rather than a live broadcast. It might be better to include the figure for all viewers who watched the program legally within one week of broadcast (if we can find the number), and of course include a note explaining so. Invisible Green (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the ratings have once again been revised to combine the first two broadcasts, maybe we should just go with it and include a note saying it. Invisible Green (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

House of the dead radio drama timeline

This is a bit of a spoiler so if you did not hear it yet, do not read on .

Since wikipedia is about facts, should the radio drama part not include the fact that the House of the dead radio drama does not take place between series 2 and 3 but rather after 3? LOTG (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It was there before but deleted. I think people note that it features Ianto and thus conclude it must be before CoE, not noticing the title. If you can cite a review that would help. I'll have a look myself. Barsoomian (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Would it be needed to cite a review if the source material litteraly tells us it is after S3 event? I thought that it was a dead giveaway LOTG (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC).

I put the facts back. So far the only review I've found to confirm this is here, which is a blog so it's probably not citeable here. Barsoomian (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been reverting the edits placing House of the Dead at a time other than between Series 2 and 3. It's not that I think it's one way or another--it's that the citations being used to assert it do not support the assertion. As soon as someone cites a source which dates House of the Dead as after CoE, I'll be glad to leave it alone. DigiFluid (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The plays themselves are the authority for the timeline statements about any of the Lost Tales. It is normal for TV shows, books, etc., to be the source for such plot information after it has aired/been published. And seeing as the fact that Ianto died six months before the events of the third story, as Jack says at 35:00, would be a spoiler for the "twist" that he's a ghost, it's unlikely that any RS will state that. I see the "The Doctor Who News Page" link says "The plays are set before Children of Earth", but this is actually just a fan site and it's otherwise unsourced. Barsoomian (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I see there's now a citation for a line of dialogue in the play. I'm not sure what the citation rules are for citing dialogue out of a radio play, but as far as I'm concerned it's good enough and I won't be reverting the change anymore (unless someone removes the citation). DigiFluid (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Entire series in one "episode"?

What is the rationale for listing the whole 5 episodes of series 3 as "number 27" and now the 10 of series 4 as "28"? Yes, they're a continuous story. Plenty of shows are one story told over the entire season (List of Damages episodes, List of 24 episodes, etc. ) or have season-long arcs, yet each episode has a separate number. I guess this was inspired by List of Doctor Who serials, but while that is justifiable as each (classic) season was made of several multi-part stories, so dividing it up into "stories" is helpful (and used in various references), it's a pointless affectation when the entire season is one story, as Torchwood has done from series 3. Each episode does have an individual title, not a "part" number, (even if CoE was just "Day One", etc.). Better just to number each individually. Is this numbering used anywhere else, or is it just the invention of some editor? Barsoomian (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Failing any disagreement, or any response at all in the 24 hours since the above, I've renumbered the episodes. Barsoomian (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I personly dissagree. I think that the single story number aply for Series 1 & 2 but not for Series 3 & 4. Children of Earth and Miracle Day are, on their own, one story made up of a number of episodes like Doctor Who. Take the Frist Doctor Era and the more-than-one-episode storys of the present Doctors; they have different titles yet are one story with one story number. You can argue with Miracle Day but especially not Chilfren of Earth, they just replaced the word "Part" or "Episode" with "Day" - it should deffinatly be one story number. Even RTD said that the current story format is ONE story spread over MULTIPLE episodes. I personaly think it should be reverted to how it was before. BionicMK (BionicMK) 00:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The column is just "No" (Number). It's not "story". There are 2-parters in the previous series and each part has a different "No", e.g. eps 2.12-2.13/25-26. Episode number is simple and unambiguous. "Story number" isn't used by any authoritative source about Torchwood (please correct me if I'm wrong). There isn't any point to number "stories" in Torchwood, unlike classic Doctor Who which had stories split over 2, 4, 6 episodes in a series. If you want a term to refer to the episodes making up a "story" of the latter series, you can just say "Series 3"/"Series 4", or "Children of Earth"/"Miracle Day". Barsoomian (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)