Talk:List of Torchwood characters

This alphabetical index of Wikipedia articles falls within the scope of the WikiProject Indexes. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical indexes on Wikipedia.IndexesWikipedia:WikiProject IndexesTemplate:WikiProject IndexesIndexes

Doctor Who: Torchwood Mid‑importance

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

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[The Master (Doctor Who)#Professor Yana and Harold Saxon|Harold Saxon]] The anchor (#Professor Yana and Harold Saxon) has been deleted by other users before.
[[Rupert Sheldrake#Morphic field|morphic field]] The anchor (#Morphic field) has been deleted by other users before.
[[Clairvoyance#Clairalience (smelling)|clairalience]] The anchor (Clairalience (smelling)) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Carys

Carys is easily more notable than Ed Morgan (who didn't appear in as much of his episode as she did in hers) and is almost as notable as Suzie (both being major roles in their episodes). Yes she isn't notable enough for an article of her own but she is easily notable enough for here. --GracieLizzie 23:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest possible respect, that's nuts. That would mean that every guest character gets their own entry, which is going to have this ending up more bloated than List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens. Get rid of Ed Morgan, by all means and get rid of Suzie too. Honestly, none of these characters warrant much more than a one-liner, or even better, a redirect/merge back to the episode article itself. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzie

Speaking of Suzie, should she really be here? Shouldn't she just be on the villians page? Actually I wouldn't mind the two pages being merged for the time being there isn't really enough info so far to justify two pages if you ask me. --GracieLizzie 23:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging is a good idea. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting Suzie on a Villians page would be a gross spoiler. You would need to be the kind of person who loves to intentionally spoil everything to do something like that. It being the first episode is no excuse either, plenty of people start watching a series without necessarily having seen the first episode. Spoil only when absolutely necessary, not just for the sake of it. Horkana 7 December 2024

Besides, Susie isn't a villain. She's the one vaguely competent member of the team, the only one who's actually more interested in saving the world than shagging anything that moves, and she's driven mad by the pressure of the job - but do the others support her? No, they demonise her for doing the very job they're supposed to be doing, but consistently shirking. Who could possibly imagine that the utterly useless Gwen Cooper was in any way a decent substitute? Given the choice of letting Gwen or Suzie die, only a complete and utter moron would choose Suzie. - 212.139.93.117 (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I wrote he above statement, Suzie was already on the villians page I was asking for her removal from the supporting characters page. This is a moot point as the two pages have been merged into the current one. When she was in the villain page she was surrounded by spoiler warings, though admittedly this may have been of little help at the time. However I believe if you don't want to be spoiled about something it is often best to avoid wikipedia articles on that subject - in you look at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning you'll see it contains the following statement:

the nature of Wikipedia, which strives first to inform, spoilers or not'

As Wikipedia is a encyclopedia project it cannot refrain from digressing spoilers, as precipitation of knowledge is the core aspect of the project. It's not that I enjoy spoiling things for people (I hate coming across spoilers for works I've not read myself), it's that the nature of Wikipedia does not favour the spoiler-shy. --GracieLizzie 23:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They Keep Killing Suzie

I don't want to put this directly into the article yet because it's speculation (but not completely unreasonable speculation) but I shall put it here to see if anyone else thinks it should be mentioned. As I said on the episode list, episode 8's title has changed to They Keep Killing Suzie[1] and the episode description to me implies that the episode will feature Suzie, it mentions "a figure from Torchwood's past" and says "the Ressurection days are far from over". There is the possibility this is misdirection, but would they bother with that on the Press Office site? . --GracieLizzie 22:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's sufficiently spoilery that we should just stay out of it until the episode airs or there's more concrete/citable information. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the info before reading this page, and have decided to remove it again for now. If anyone else wants to reinsert the text, it was:

Spoiler warning: This section may contain details of episodes and/or events which have yet to be broadcast.

The BBC plot summary for the episode They Keep Killing Suzie speaks of "a series of brutal murders around the city...connected to a figure from Torchwood's past", indicating a return for Suzie. The summary ends with "the resurrection days are far from over", referencing her resurrection glove.^[1] {{endspoiler}} La ï ka 11:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Network TV Week 49, BBC Press Office

Merge

In accordance with the above discussion, I've decided to put merge proposal tags on these pages. I want to find out what others think and put in my opinions. See above for my reasons why I propose a merger, I suggest the two should be merged into a new page called List of Torchwood supporting characters and villains. --GracieLizzie 23:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something more simple, like List of Torchwood characters. Villains are characters too. I think we'd have to list the main characters but then we'd just provide links to their articles using the {{main}} template. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea actually, it is similar to what happens at the Monsters and Aliens and Villians Doctor Who articles as well as articles for other series like Characters in Bleach and List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts. I support this as a potential resolution too. --GracieLizzie 00:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that both the lists are premature. The lists make sense for Doctor Who because it's built up such a large supporting and recurring cast over the decades that requires some organisation. We've only had three episodes of Torchwood, and neither Suzie, Carys or Ed are recurring. None of these three, count as "supporting cast" in any meaningful sense. Neither are Cary or Ed particularly significant other than a guest of the week situation. So why do they even need a mention outside of the episode article, which contains (or can contain) all the same information? We should nip this in the bud right now and redirect all of them to the right story articles. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, while I agree Carys and Ed may not be notable (I only added Carys because Ed was added) I think Suzie is by due to the amount of publicity material she was featured in and I think Rhys and PC Andy are notable enough to be in this style of article rather than to be talked about on the Gwen page. This may be the mergist in me speaking but to completely eradicate this pages strikes me as a too deletionist an action. --GracieLizzie 12:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that Suzie's information takes up, at best, a few paragraphs, with no current potential of expansion, and it's most, of not all, in Everything Changes. Maintaining forks with no additional information simply does not make sense. If she comes back, all right. But there's no indication she will. If the unique information about her expands enough or increases enough to have her own article, it can simply be spun off, much like say, History of the Daleks was from Dalek.

But let's put that aside. For the sake of argument say that Suzie and Rhys are significant. Carys isn't. Ed isn't. So let's eliminate them. PC Andy is borderline at best, because he's appeared for all of, what, less than three minutes over two episodes? But let's just say keep him; there's not enough to warrant two lists. Nor is there enough to warrant infoboxes. Keep it small, keep it tight, until there's enough information to justify it. We can't create pages for the sake of creating pages. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you've got it set out now, as you said it is small and tight this way and it looks quite neat too. If their is not futhur complaints I think we should merge the two articles soon. Preferably today. --GracieLizzie 14:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I like how it looks now too. And I still support the merge. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point having a seperate villains page if one-episode baddies aren't included, since you'll be lucky to have even one entry by the end of the series. Same with characters - if you're not including PC Andy or other characters who appeared in one or two episodes, then you're probably only going to have Gwen's boyfriend on that page. I vote either merge with characters and include characters who appeared in small roles in a couple of episodes/major one-shot villains like Suzie and Ed, or just nuke both pages. If you're going to do the pages, you might as well try to get as much information on there as possible. Remember that not every episode will have a human villain. Hell, some of them might not even have villains at all (looking at the one about the plane from the 50s landing in Cardiff). --Mister Six 11:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's call it something like List of Torchwood minor characters and keep it to characters with more than one appearance (as a general criteria; Suzie can be one exception). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's do that :) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and created the planned page at the above link. If everyone likes it we can redirect the two older pages to it and alter the torchwood navigation info box. Can this talk page be moved to make it that pages' talk page if this page is redirected? --GracieLizzie 15:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what. I'm merging the page histories. Hold off on any edits to the pages until I give the all clear. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that? Cool! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template fixed, and we're done. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys picture?

Anyone got a screen cap of Rhys we could use? I just think it would be nice to have a small pic of him like we have for Suzie and Lisa. --GracieLizzie 17:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A cap like this one cropped and resized 403px by 382px like Suzie's image and then included in the article using [[Image:<entername>|250px]] (again, like Suzie's) would be good. But I'd rather have it capped by a Wikipedian than taken from another site, even when they allow it, so we don't have to credit back. I'd do it myself but I didn't record Everything Changes, all I have access too is Small Worlds where there are no instances of Rhys on the screen on his own. --GracieLizzie 18:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Andy and Rhys. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Khaos! These are great ^_^. --GracieLizzie 11:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine

Would Jasmine belong in this list? PMA 20:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more significant than any other one-shot villain. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Minor"

A definition of the word "minor" from Wiktionary - to quote that definition; "of little significance or importance." - correct me if I'm wrong, but Carys Fletcher and Estelle Cole were removed from this page because they weren't of enough signifiacne, but it is a list of minor characters, so should include them as well, logically... Trampik e y ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 23:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this going two ways, but I'm thinking much longer term, because if we include them, where does it end? My judgement, admittedly, is coloured by the haphazard and unwieldy nature of the other Doctor Who list pages (monsters and aliens in particular) and I know that Torchwood isn't comparable to the 27+ seasons of creatures that Doctor Who has accumulated, but I can see this getting out of control. The question in my mind when trying to answer if a character needs a write-up here is whether or not the character has appeared (or is notable) outside of the episode they appeared in, and/or also whether or not all the pertinent information about them can already be found in that episode's article. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are different degrees of notability. There are Characters who are only notable enough to mention in the context of the episode they appear in (e.g. Jasmine, Bernie) there are characters who aren't notable enough for a section here but demand mentioning on a main characters page (e.g. Estelle) and then there are minor characters like the one list here, and then the major characters. --GracieLizzie 00:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the cannibals? Where should they appear? --GracieLizzie 00:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa and Suzie are both (as khaosworks calls them) "one-shot" characters, too. Lisa's background can certainly all be seen in the "Cyberwoman" article. Come on, we're 6 episodes in, and we have four characters that are deemed notable enough by you to be on the minor list! Trampik e y ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 16:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I also talked about characters notable outside the episodes they appeared in (Suzie is one, because she was hyped up in the pre-broadcast materials as noted, and is likely returning; Lisa as a Cyberwoman has a connection to Army of Ghosts and Doomsday). So your solution is to include every character? How about Lynn or Rob? Or Bernie Harries? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I think should be on here are; John Tucker, Carys Fletcher, Sean "Bernie" Harries, Ed Morgan, Lizzie Lewis, Tom Flanagan, Dr. Tanizaki, Estelle Cole and Jasmine Pierce Trampik e y ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 16:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By what criteria? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That it is a list of minor characters, meaning that characters "of little significance or importance" should be included as well as the ones you have deemed appropriate. Trampik e y ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 17:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not Lynn and Rob, or any number of background characters, like the bouncer at the club Matt was killed at, or Matt himself? You need to set down boundaries. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see the reasons for including say Carys, but what do we know about - say - Dr Tanizaki? He's dead, a doctor of cybernetics, and likes nice hotels. Hardly a full biography. La ï ka 17:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibals

As the cannibals are the main villains of an episode like the sex gas or the "fairies" I think we ought to include them (collectively though i.e. a section on all the cannibals, and not separate Huw, Helen, and Evan sections) but the question is on which list? This list does contain a human villain (Suzie) but she is an individual not a group like the fairies or the Weevils, but they aren't aliens, however one could argue they are rather monstrous even if they are human. I'll add them here for now. --GracieLizzie 10:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If included, they should be in the monsters list. No one said monsters can't be human, and they certainly fulfil a traditional "monster" role. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added them to the monsters page as you suggested. My reasoning for including them is that they are a driving force behind an episode like the sex gas, fairies, or Ghost Machine - unlike Carys, Jasmine, or Ed Morgan who were involved but not the driving force themselves. --GracieLizzie 17:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Estelle

Wouldn't Estelle be here? I mean... she was with Jack and everything, and does have such a complicated history. Lisa was only in for one episode, right? Yeah, she did have an episode revolve around her but Estelle did in a way too. And it's not like there isn't the room.-Babylon pride 18:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I just noticed the part two above. Oh well. But still. My point remains. Carys didn't have a past with Jack. Lisa had one with Ianto and therefore, here she is. Estelle had a huge one with Jack. I mean, huge. I think she's just as noteworthy as Lisa, if not a bit more, since it involves the love life - involving the only confirmed love - of the main character.-Babylon pride 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Estelle is very important to Jack's characterisation, as much as the other Jack was in terms of Jack's identity. I would definitely give her a section, we do surprisingly know quite a lot about her, we even have pictures of 17-year-old Estelle on the website.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tense

Some of the summaries of characters in this page are past tense and some are present. It seems the definitely deceased people are summarised in past tense and the living/unconfirmed (e.g. Diane) are in present tense, wouldn't it look better to stick to one tense? Personally I prefer past tense myself. --GracieLizzie 10:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction is written in the present tense ("are", not "was"), unless for example it is destroyed. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most fiction I've come across seems to be written in the past tense - "said" not "says", "sighed" not "sighs", "looked" not "looks". I am not saying we shouldn't use present tense when summarising there personalities or looks, just there actions.--GracieLizzie 10:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Present tense. Fiction itself always is despite what the character is. Being dead doesn't make them cease to be a fictional character, etc.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bilis

"into a situation where they would have to completely open the Rift and release the deity he worships." Nowhere in the show does it suggest he 'worships' Abaddon, it may even be that he is some "projection" of Abaddon's mind, much like 'The Beast' in the crossover show Doctor Who had a projection of his mind outside his body to possess people and make projections of himself. 207.202.227.125 02:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He refers to Abaddon as his "god." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.171 (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is an anagram of Billis Manger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.1.105.62 (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grim Lesbian, but since it's unsourced it can't go into the article. There are others, all with the same problem. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dianajohn.jpg

Image:Dianajohn.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FUJ added * image restored--Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 13:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain John

The character of Captain John has been announced and has been added to this article in order to resolve a situation involving a merge request. 23skidoo (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't he be under H for Hart? --GracieLizzie (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too minor

All the 20th Century Torchwood characters, really? No mention of actors, either?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys' Own Page

Doesn't anyone else think that Rhys has been in enough episodes to earn himself his own page, he has even had a episode centred around him. Leo (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If characters like Leo Jones from Doctor Who can have their own page (Leo's role in that series being quite minor compared to Rhys' role in Torchwood) then Rhys should have his own page. However, I don't think everyone on this page should have their own page, just Rhys.

Plus, he is listed with the main cast in the credits, rather than with the guest cast. :-)

HillValleyTelegraph (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Leo Jones should not have an article anyway. Real world information is THE only requisite for character articles on Wikipedia. For example, should Rhys win "man of the year" in TIME, and then be identified as a "Welsh unsung hero" by a Cardiff newspaper, we could discuss that as "reception". Similarly, if you can track down information on the conception, creation and development of the character (for example, an interview with the actor about how he plays Rhys, an interview with the director of "Meat" about what he was trying to get across, or some nice quotes from Davies about inventing Rhys.) With Doctor Who, these tasks are relatively easy. Between podcasts, DVD commentaries, Doctor Who Magazine, Torchwood Magazine, Doctor Who Confidential, Torchwood Declassified, Radio Times, internet-based interviews and wherever else, we could include those. There are plenty of sources for diehard Whovians to get their teeth stuck into. I don't like the show quite enough to buy DWM or the box sets, though.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's to discuss. He has much more of a role in the show than any of the other minor characters listed and has had an episode dedicated to him and a few related to him. Why does everyone insist he stays on the minor characters page? He's credited in every episode, surely that's enough? The coronation street minor characters article has characters who are actually major listed as minor and characters with their own page who are minor. Please don't let the torchwood articles on this site go in that direction. Mikeipedia (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he should have his own article. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't put it any better than Zythe did above - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't sufficient reason to create an article based solely on Rhys. Notable coverage in verifiable secondary sources and adequate critical commentary is, and while such coverage may indeed exist, none has yet been presented. Frickative (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frickative, Zythe, if he's credited for every episode, why isn't that a usable source? Mikeipedia (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is definitely time Rhys had his own page. He already has a good portion of information to his name, and a few of us want to add more about him from the Torchwood Magazine and other sources. He is also starting to appear on some sources as being a main character in Season Three. --Clarrisani (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are a number of sources which discuss the character, then adding the information from them to his section on this list is a good starting point. Almost a year on from the beginning of this discussion, there is only one single citation in the Rhys section which isn't to a primary source, and that was only added today. If there does exist a wealth of information on the character, the compiling pertinent information here shouldn't be difficult. Frickative 05:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to start building on Rhys' information. We have stuff from analysis (two different published sources), interviews and articles in the magazine, interviews with Kai Owen, and a few other comments from various members of the production team. Rhy' information also needs to be updated for his recent large roles in the last round of novels. --Clarrisani (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it already looks as if Rhys will get his own page, I'll just say I completely agree that he should. Whoniverse93 00:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Smith

"Mary" the Butterfly Person fugitive is placed on the monsters page. "Adam Smith" the Memory Thief is placed on the characters page. There needs to be a decision made regarding their categorisation, and I vote Adam Smith be moved to monsters and aliens with a redirect here. "Mary" should also have a redirect from here. Clockwork Apricot (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a TV programme like Torchwood, the distinction between "character" and "monster" is often a little artificial. It gets even more complex when you have human characters like the cannibalistic Sherman family of the Countrycide episode. They're "monsters" by a conventional definition (Merriam-Webster: "a person of unnatural or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty", Shorter OED: "a person of inhuman cruelty of wickedness"), but they're also human characters (which makes them more believable, and hence more terrifying).

I wonder if it would be better simply to merge the articles List of Torchwood monsters and aliens and List of Torchwood minor characters into a single article. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, been doing some thinking and I reckon that there is a line to place things either side of, but it is quite difficult to explain. Characters such as Suzie, Costello, Lisa Hallett, Beth Halloran, James Mayer and Adam Smith are all characters. The Cannibals and Mary would be considered monsters. It's difficult and I think we'll just all have to do our best in recognising the difference. Where there is a discrepancy, a See also: on the respective article could work wonders. I think a merge of the two articles would be far too far however. I'm going to do my best to sort it all out now... Clockwork Apricot (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canon

Doctor Who and Torchwood tend to laugh in the face of the word "canon". It's probably better not to mention it at all rather than pepper the articles of this encyclopedia with scary references to the fact that it isn't much respected in the spin-offs. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's for the sake of informing the reader and to provide real world context. How would the average casual reader whose never seen Torchwood understand the status of Doctor Who canon unless it was explicitly stated?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Gray'

Should the character of 'Gray' be spelt on this and other pages with an e rather than an a as e is the british spelling and this is a british program? S-m-r-t (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's spelled "Gray" on the BBC pages, IIRC, and in the credits. The UK/US difference in spelling is for the colour (or color); in this case, speculation is that it's short for "Graham", which would imply "Gray". In the absence of definite information, we should go with the BBC spelling. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sound's good to me thanks for clearing that up S-m-r-t (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Halloran

Hi

I was just wondering, if we can't have one-shot villains on this page, why is there a section for Beth Halloran? What is she if not a one-shot villain? George.millman (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captian John

Could I make a separate page for captian John, he is a reccuring villian and is probably going to return agian.

JordanAshley (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the captian John article being marged? I asked and no one had any objections to making a new page and he a reccuring villian is is likey to return in series 3 becous the actor is hjappy to return.

Currently, he's a great recurring character but he does not exist that much inside the public consciousness in the way that Jack or the Doctor or Buffy might. I think his inclusion in this list article actually makes this article stronger.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the move of this content. First, it was done without consensus; second, it created a completely unsourced and poorly-titled article. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tosh and Owen

Seeing as the "minor" has gone, are we to merge these characters into the main page, as is being done with a lot of other TV series?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added links to all the character articles. --OZ OO 19:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Adam"'s "death"

The article states that Adam is 'dead' as all of the Torchwood team members forget him, but I believe this is not the case. While all of the Torchwood members forgot about Adam, there was one person who saw him but did not take an amnesia pill: Rhys. He met Adam when he and Jack came to Gwen's aid when Rhys 'broke into' her flat, but he was not made to forget Adam. Could it be the case that Adam survived through Rhys' memory? NFreak007 (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost anything is "possible" in Torchwood; however we cannot say this because it would be original research unless supported by a reliable third-party source. If you can find one, fine. --Rodhull andemu 14:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Captain Jack" IP issue

So, what is the feeling about this? The pre-existing consensus seems to be to keep the entry quite short, given that there is a main article linked. While the IP's edit warring is not correct, is there any of the text that is relevant here? Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate page for Rhys?

Since Rhys' article is quite big now, should he be moved to a separate article? Considering he is said to 'almost become a fourth member of Torchwood' he is becoming a fairly major character, so I reckon the character should have it's own article. --Old Marcus (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends on the level of real-world information we are able to amass about him. That's the only qualification for having a separate article. Myself and a few other editors have for example done some work on the Jack, Ianto, Owen, Toshiko and Gwen to reflect more information about characterisation, reception, third party critical examination and whatnot. I can think that there is probably a lot of stuff about Rhys' role as a "regular guy" in the midst of the action, and stuff about the decision not to kill him off in series one, but I don't know if there is a whole article's worth. It might be more like the Captain John section, where we have a bulky and well-developed section on this page which retains the potential to expand with more real-world information in future.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well a separate page was created, which was subsequently deleted because of copyright infringement. But most of the material was already existing in this article. See external Rhys article and Wikipedia Rhys article. --Mad Pierrot (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might the BBC Press Interview Help? There are quotes from Kai about Rhys.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/06_june/15/torchwood7.shtml—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.57.248 (talk • contribs)

Well then, guys, get to work by whipping the subsection into shape. That's the first thing that needs to be done before you can consider spinning it off.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created a new page, with new sections and additional quotes. I assume it suffices? Camp Camper 16:20, 19th July 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit messy, I'm not sure if it was worth its own page, but it's better than 50% of fictional character articles currently on Wikipedia. Needs some copyediting and a ton more sources to justify its place, and it also sort of reads like an advertisement for the character. Can you find any "Reception" information - reviews which comment on Kai Owen's acting, etc.?

Oh, and you're also going to need to do a move request to Rhys Williams (Torchwood) per WP:COMMONNAME.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jilly Kitzinger

I've expanded Jilly's entry a bit. Since, however, she's one of the main characters in the Miracle Day arc - she gets her own video profile, for example, which Vera Juarez doesn't (the video reveals her full name) - it might be worth considering giving her a separate article depending on how things progress with her character. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Group Captain Jack Harkness

Fixed this section to say actor Matt Rippy, not John Barrowman. Remember, this section is about the Jack Harkness whose name Barrowman's character took, not Barrowman's character — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.78.217 (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geraint Cooper

Do we know that his name really is Geraint? When Gwen speaks it aloud (e.g. in her monologue at the beginning of S4E10, "The Blood Line") it sounds like /geh-right/, with no nasal. I don't know enough about Welsh names to know what the proper spelling of that might be. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of Torchwood characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Torchwood characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022010851/http://www.afterellen.com/tv/which-torchwood-character-reveals-herself-as-a-lesbian-in-this-weeks-episode-of-miracle-day to http://www.afterellen.com/tv/which-torchwood-character-reveals-herself-as-a-lesbian-in-this-weeks-episode-of-miracle-day

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[TKKS-1] Network TV Week 49, BBC Press Office

[1]