Talk:Torchwood Institute

Aliens of London

RTD said in Confidential that Torchwood existed in S2005. Will (message me!) 09:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What does the S in "S2005" mean? ~ Branfish^{Talk to me!}

"Series". Always add an extra ~ for a timestamp btw! We appear to suddenly have very similar signatures too... ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I copied-and-pasted it because I didn't know how to do it myself. Being a fool I didn't think to read the line just above the text box. Won't happen again. Branfish 00:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternate Torchwood

Does the regular Rose Tyler actually go on to work for Alternate Torchwood, or does she just say that this is a possibility? RedvBlue 14:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

She says she's working for Torchwood, i.e. she already is. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. She doesn't say that. RedvBlue 23:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

When/where does Rose say she's working alternate Torchwood? quercus robur 20:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

She never does, but see here for more. RedvBlue 21:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Would it make sense for....

Torchwood
Torchwood logo
In-universe information
Type	Intelligence agency, Private army
Founded	Scotland, 1879 by Queen Victoria
Location	Great Britain Canary Wharf, London, England Millenium Centre, Cardiff, Wales Torchwood House, Highlands, Scotland[1]
Key people	Queen Victoria Jack Harkness Yvonne Hartman
Purpose	Extraterrestrial research Protecting Britain Developing new technologies
Technologies	Dimensional transporter Proton gun
Powers	Wealth to build skyscraper as headquarters Influence beyond Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Staff trained in telepathy
Affiliations	United Nations Intelligence Taskforce
Subsidiaries	Torchwood Archive
Website	http://www.torchwood.org.uk/ http://www.visittorchwood.co.uk/

I'm using the talk page to show what I've created so far... Zythe 17:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

me to create a nice template for "The Torchwood Institute" to go with article, explaining all the key information along the side?

Also, what about creating an article for Torchwood personel, it might be notable to mention Adeola and others, and that they all possess telepathy.Zythe 13:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm missing 10 hours of sleep, but I'll work on creating one just for Torchwood tomorrow :) Zythe 22:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. What template? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Creating an entirely new template for fictional organisations like Torchwood, but in such a way that it expressed all the key information we know about Torchwood. Eg. Founded by: Queen Victoria in 18XX. Known branches in: Canary Wharf, Cardiff. Etc. etc. Zythe 23:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. This sounds like it might have a wider application than Doctor Who. Are there any similar templates around? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I did look for a "Fictional organisations" or "fictional intelligence agencies" template but there appears to be none. I did look around quite a bit. So I was thinking, if I need to make one, I could make one just for Torchwood, which would be able to explain the nature of the institute a lot quicker. Zythe 12:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not consider making one for the various fictional organisations in general, or if you want a bit narrower, what we have for Doctor Who already? Look at Category:Doctor Who organisations. Appropriate for this would be UNIT, ICIS and the Forge. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

{{Torchwood}} perhaps? Will (message me!) 12:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Khaosworks, that would be good, then I could apply it to The Initiative (Buffyverse) but I don't know anything about UNIT or Forge. Sceptre, that's not what I meant. I meant an edit of {{Infobox Company}} to apply to organisations, it would look similar to the one shown on Umbrella Corporation etc. Zythe 15:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC) AND: How about I design it here and when it's ready I move it to {{Fictional secret organisations}}? Zythe 16:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A little "bottom of the article" box Will (message me!) 18:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

They're completely different things with completely different purposes. I'm going to go ahead and add the box to the main page. Be bold, right? Zythe 18:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That looks good! I've added it to S.P.E.C.T.R.E., and some else has added it to The Initiative (Buffyverse). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 19:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And I've added it to UNIT, although someone should probably check I've got the details right. Daibhid C 20:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, it was me again who added it to The Initiatve ^_^ Zythe 21:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Zythe, your page looks far superior to the existing Wiki page. Nice job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.169.234 (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternate/Alternative

Would I be right in thinking (as per my RV as of 00:35 BST, 15 July 2006) that it should be Alternate Torchwood, rather then Alternative Torchwood, because it is in a parallel universe and that that is the generally accepted wording? S.Skinner 23:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Very much correct. "Alternative" indicates choice. Zythe 00:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I just wanted to make sure that someone at any rate agreed with me and I wasn't mangling the English language. S.Skinner 10:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

>> "Alternative" indicates choice"

That hardly justifies the change in wording. "Alternate" could just as easily imply that Torchwood itself changes from one version to another. 78.32.64.145 07:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"Alternate" has always been the correct term.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 09:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. 'Alternate' is perhaps the more accepted term, it isn't necessarily the correct term. 86.29.86.4 07:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Odd Trivia

'Torchwood' is an anagram for 'Doctor Who'

Is it worth mentioning this little tidbit? Elfich 03:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Torchwood. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh... missed that. Elfich 16:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Torchwood Personnel

Surely Captain Jack Harkness and Gwen Cooper are Torchwood personnel? Shouldn't they and any others from Torchwood be added to the list of Torchwood Personnel? RedvBlue 15:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, makes sense, I'll go ahead and do it. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

Would it make sense if I created a Torchwood (disambiguation) page, which is linked to from Torchwood? As well as containing the television programme, it could include the Burseraceae page and this page. In this way, I think that it is easier for this Torchwood Institute page to be found. RedvBlue 11:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I wondered if anyone thought this might be a better picture to use? I don't actually know how to do this myself, so bear with me.

http://www.cybuscorporation.com/

Once you go to save it, you find that the actual logo and the "agents click here" bit are separate images. I say this because the current picture is a bit dirty (if you see what I mean.

Sorry, that last one was from me. Zoanthrope 19:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but while there is a fair use rationale for us being able to use the logo released in the promotional picture, the use of the graphic (created by the site owners, presumably) is not as clear. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fear Her

I'm not sure Torchwood is public by 2012. While it's obvious the obscured line was written as a Torchwood reference, it seems to me just as likely that, within the programme, he was talking about the wood the Olympic Torch was made from... Daibhid C 19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No - on the Doctor Who Confidential show, it did list this as a reference. This means that Torchwood must have been common knowledge at this time. RedvBlue 13:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Rose in Torchwood

At the end of Doomsday, she says "Torchwood here is open for business". She never said that she was working for them. RedvBlue 17:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Context, context, context:

Doctor: And what about you, what are you...?

Rose: Yeah. I'm back working in the shop.

D: Well, good for you.

R: Shut up. No I'm not. There's another Torchwood on this planet, it's open for business. Think I know a thing or two about aliens.

D: Rose Tyler... Defender of the Earth!

They're talking about jobs, she says she's not working at the shop, then she talks about Torchwood. It's a plain reading of the dialogue that produces the inference. In fact, to infer otherwise would require a stretch. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with you. You just proved yourself; she never says that she's working for Torchwood. RedvBlue 17:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that she says "it's open for business" suggests that she doesn't work there. It does suggest that she is interested in working there, but that is not something someone would say, if they were in the job. RedvBlue 17:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is simply the plain reading of her dialogue. I think you're overthinking it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

And there's certainly verifiable authorial intent, given the well-documented abandoned spin-off special that would have shown her working there. Angmering 22:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have proof of this? I did not know that it was about her in Torchwood. If you do, then this is clear evidence that she was going to work there, as oppose to her saying that it's open for business (to me it sounds pretty much like she will try and go to work there, and she isn't already). RedvBlue 20:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"It spoils Doctor Who... if we see as a concrete fact that her life continues to be as exciting without the Doctor, as a female agent of Torchwood, fighting evil, and righting wrongs." Russell T Davies, on why Rose Tyler: Earth Defence was abandoned. Doctor Who Magazine issue 373, page 31. Angmering 20:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Very good. At least there are still some good wikipedians out there. Maybe this should be included in the article? RedvBlue 13:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Torchwood one destroyed?

Does Jack definately say that? I don't remember it I just thought he said it was involved in the battle of Canary warf. The building definately still exists at the end of Doomsday, even if most of its staff are dead.

Transcribed from the episode verbatim:

Jack: This is Torchwood Three. Torchwood One was London... destroyed in the Battle. Torchwood Two is an office in Glasgow — very strange man. Torchwood Three, Cardiff. Torchwood Four has kinda gone missing but we'll find it one day.

--khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Torchwood Fansites

There is one site I have noticed for Torchwood in Glasgow and it's url is [[2]]

It is a fan club set up with families in mind as it runs in the afternoon. This club is the Dr. Who section of a very sucessful science fiction club, The USS Valiant which is based in Glasgow, Scotland ([[3]]).

The club will run on the second sunday of every month and its first meeting will be Sunday 12th November 2006 at the Travel Lodge - Glasgow Central, 5 - 11 Hill Street, Glasgow, G3 6RP, Scotland.

Torchwood Four

Is there a place for the online speculation that T-4 is in Belfast? PMA 07:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Not unless the speculation has been mentioned in a reliable source or is based on some pretty solid evidence in the programme or the official website. I mean, it makes a certain amount of sense since the other three are all in the other constituent nations, but considering that Torchwood was set up by Victoria, the Irish branch (if any) could just as easily have been in Dublin. (Puts a less pleasant spin on Jack's comment that "we'll get it back", doesn't it?)

My point is that unless the discussion has reached more noteworthy climes than the Outpost Gallifrey forums, we probably shouldn't mention it. Better to stick to what was said on screen — that it's "missing". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always suspected Torchwood Four being missing is a reference to Babylon 5, where the fourth space station, Babylon 4, mysteriously goes missing :) Highly unlikely we'll ever get an explanation of that throwaway comment though! Bods (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Website

I was thinking about a section putting together the historic information from the Torchwood website (with the usual "the canonity of spin-offs is unclear" disclaimer, of course). Anyone think that's a good idea? Daibhid C 16:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Website's totally canon isn't it? I already added all the stuff I can think of, unless there's a section/site I missed.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the website's canon or not; it's official which isn't necessarily the same thing.

Anyway, I was thinking of something like this

Website History

The Torchwood Insititute website includes various exerpts from the Institute's files, detailing events from its history. The canonity of this information, like all spin-off media, is unclear.

In 1886 a Torchwood agent discovered a brilliant scientist had killed his wife and children with radiation. He was prevented from taking this further, to protect the Institute's anonymity. [4]

In a speech made in 1888, Queen Victoria coined the Torchwood motto "If it is alien, then it is ours".[5]

In 1922 a Torchwold agent named Gladys Minnow covered up an alien visitor which had been found by a young boy, claiming it to be a stuffed ape. Both the corpse and the child were sent to "a crown charity outside Glasgow" (presumably Torchwood-2).[6]

In the 1950s Torchwood-3 used a fish and chips shop as a front. Agents of this branch included Dr Sally Fletcher, whose journal is used in the website; Charlie, whose duties included maintaining the front; Peter, another scientist who worked with Sally; and "the Boss". Other Torchwood employees, from different departments, included G. Johnson, S. Harris, I. Finders, B. Foster, and F. Turner. The chip shop also employed a woman named Merryl, who had no idea of its true purpose. [7]

The Boss was highly manipulative, at one point sending Sally to a village powered by a crashed spaceship while telling her she was on holiday.The village was subsequently flooded for a hydroelectric reserve. [8]

In 1962 a Torchwood agent and his young daughter suffered slowly fatal effects after he took an artifact home, and were quarantined in a caravan until their deaths. [9]

At some point after Captain Jack joined Torchwood (presumably the 2000s), he destroyed a being that fed off devotion, draining its victims' strength, in a gay bar in Cardiff. [10]

It's entirely possible this is all Too Much Detail. Daibhid C 14:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Death Toll for the Battle of Canary Wharf

There appears to be a contradiction here:

"It was later revealed that the London branch of Torchwood, referred to as Torchwood One, lost 696 members of staff and was ultimately ordered to close by Queen Elizabeth." ~ [Under heading "2007"]

"According to the Torchwood website, there were 823 members of staff. Only 27 were known to have survived." ~ [Under heading "Divisions > Torchwood One, London"]

There seems to be a discrepancy of exactly 100 people. Furthermore, looking at the provenance for the first figure, I find the following:

"Of 823 staff, we have 27 survivors. 467 are known to be dead, the rest are listed as missing."

Therefore, unless somebody can justify the figure of 696, I propose it be amended to either 796 (823 - 27) or 467.~Branfish^{Talk to me!}

769 is correct. Bad maths when you have no coffee and haven't slept in weeks.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Samuel

I ask this more out of curiosity than anything else, but why is there a member of staff listed as "Samuel", linking to a page about Mickey? ~ Branfish^{Talk to me!}

Because "Samuel" was actually Mickey working covertly in Torchwood under an assumed name. --GracieLizzie 13:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha. It's been a while since I watched it. ~ Branfish^{Talk to me!}

Torchwood vs Babylon 5

In episode 1 of torchwood doesnt cpt jack mention that he works at torchwood 5 and that 1-3 were destroyed and torchwood 4 was lost? That is a direct quote from Babylon 5 in which a similar fate befalls the previous babylon stations. Why is torchwood 3 confused with torchwood 5 in this article. In fact, torchwood 5 is missing from this article completely. How comes? --Filthish 13:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You're just confused. The Babylon reference is mentioned at Everything Changes (Torchwood). Jack works at Torchwood Three. One was destroyed. Two is operational in Scotland. Four is missing. Hope that clears it up. 13:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

H.C. Clements

Should there be a reference to this security firm (as Torchwood owns it), and if so, where? Will ^{(Because you're filthy, ooh, and I'm gorgeous)}_{Merry Christmas!} 19:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

GA review

It's excellent, like all Doctor Who articles, but I have some problems I feel a week would be enough to complete:

1. There should be a section on the conception of Torchwood, like being an anagram of Doctor Who and how it was the big arc of the second series of the revived show.

    Done Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 17:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

2. History be renamed Fictional History.

    Done Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 17:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

3. Fair use rationales for the logo picture and the Doctor entering the building in 2007.

    Done Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 17:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

4. The Divisions section needs at the start on the episode when these divisions were described (was it Torchwood?), to be a bit more out-of-universe.

    Done Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 17:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveller 16:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Passed. Alientraveller 11:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Something else

Hi,

Since the last episode of Doctor Who has let us know that Jack Harkness is The Face of Boe, wouldn't it be safe to assume that he will lead the Torchwood institute into the future? We have heard in the episode "The Satan Pit" that Torchwood still exists (I believe there are other references as well)

Grtz,

robin.lemstra

Basically, in compiling an encyclopedia entry for a fictional organisation, it's not safe to assume anything. Either it's been mentioned in the show, or it hasn't. And there's nothing suggesting that Jack plans to remain with the Institute for as long as it exists, or that nothing will prevent such plans, should he have them. Daibhid C 19:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I just re-watched that episode, and there is a hint that Jack might be the Face Of Boe, but only a hint, and only might. Unless it's alluded to again in more strength I'd be inclined to view it as a bit of an in-joke for regular viewers. 88.105.121.86 (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Queen Victoria?

I notice links have been inserted to the effect that Torchwood was created by Victoria of the United Kingdom. This seems a wrong-headed and confusing conflation of fantasy and reality. The tenor of the article is fictional, so shouldn't all the plot-related links be to fictional characters too, e.g. historical characters in Doctor Who rather than real people, who have no link whatsoever with the story? Just a thought. --Stevouk 23:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see anything wrong with a reference to a fictional portrayal of a real person linking to the page on that person, since that's who the story was referring to. I think it's clear enough that the article isn't claiming she really founded Torchwood. I also note that the Victoria page has a section on her portayal in fiction, which includes "Tooth and Claw" and her founding of Torchwood. Would it help if the link were altered to go directly to that section? Daibhid C 21:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we to assume everyone in the whole world knows who Queen Victoria is?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you find someone who doesn't? ;) Leushenko 19:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Was she the inventer of the sponge? (sorry) 88.105.121.86 (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Paralell Torchwood/ Rose's Torchwood

Should this be mentioned? In Doomsday, Rose clearly states that she runs Torchwood on paralell earth. Infact, a oneoff show about this was planned but was cancelled by Russell T Davies at the last minute.

It is mentioned.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Great Britain vs United Kingdom

While you have that nice discussion with reversions and revisions to the page, I wondered if "the British Empire" might be more appropriate. Yvonne says:

Yvonne Hartman: The Torchwood Institute has a motto. ‘If it’s alien, it’s ours’. Anything that comes from the sky, we strip it down and we use it, for the good of the British Empire. Jackie: For the good of the what? Yvonne Hartman: The British Empire. Jackie: There isn’t a British Empire. Yvonne Hartman: Not yet.

PoisonedPigeon 21:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that this edit war is extraordinarily lame. Why does it matter whether a fictional organization's remit is to protect the United Kingdom or Great Britain? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it often the case that there are bigger arguments over the smaller things? But to answer PoisonedPigeon's question: the quote states there isn't a British Empire. Which to my mind makes it a tricky location. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 21:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I ought to dump this discussion from my talk page here. I resent being singled out, accused of "edit warring" by someone who is actually involved in the same said "war", and 'warned' about it by that person. Like the whole disagreement, it seems rather childish and pointless to me.

Here is the discussion:

Your edits on Torchwood Institute

You may want to look at British Isles (terminology). Will ^(talk) 13:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Because Yvonne specifically says "for the good of the British Empire". Britian =/= UK. Will ^(talk) 16:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Britain is an island. The United Kingdom is a country. The nationality of the United Kingdom is British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.36.167 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 August 2007

I reckon there's a bunch of people in NI who don't think they're British. And there is no evidence in the narrative to support that Torchwood has expanded beyond the mainland. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a bunch of people throughout England, Scotland and Wales also who don't think they're British. However, they all live in the United Kingdom, the nationality of which is, for good or for bad, "British". You said it yourself. So what exactly are you arguing about? Have you got a point?

Torchwood not "expanding beyond the mainland" is no reason to confine its location to one geographical region or island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.36.167 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 31 August 2007

The point is that the Torchwood Institute is, based on current sources, located within that island. A further point is that three editors currently disagree with your edit, which indicates there is no consensus in favour of the change you're trying to push. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 16:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a democracy to have things decided just because some people don't like certain things.

If an institution, real or fictional, was based in Washington, Ohio and Wyoming, one wouldn't say it's location was "All of the states of the USA, except Texas". One would simply say "the USA".

Indeed, Wikipedia is not a democracy. However, it's also true that a single voice, crying in the wilderness, is unlikely to reflect consensus on a given issue. In this case, the lack of evidence to suggest that a fictional organisation is based in a fictional Northern Ireland — for which, in case you haven't noticed, there is no evidence of its being a constituent of a fictional United Kingdom — leads consensus away from describing it as you would desire. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 16:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You keep mentioning Northern Ireland as if that place had somehow been mentioned in an inclusive, exclusive, positive or negative way. That is not the issue. The issue is that there is no good reason to specify a specific part of the country, when that wouldn't be done with other countries (for example, the USA as I demonstrated above).

The United States of America is the United States of America, and includes the off-shore (non-mainland) states of Hawaii and Alaska. Fictional versions of the USA are assumed to include these two states unless specified.

Likewise, the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom, and includes the off-shore (non-mainland) regions of Shetland and Orkney and Northern Ireland. Fictional versions of the UK are assumed to include these regions unless specified.

Once again - there is no reason to shave off or reduce the country in a fictional version of it, just because you, and a couple of other voices, decide that there is no evidence that Northern Ireland is included in the fictional UK. There is no evidence that the Isle of Wight exists in the fictional UK either (so far as I know), but you haven't made a case for that to be specifically excluded from the country in the Torchwood article.

The onus is up to you to prove that Northern Ireland, or what ever other regions you deem fit, are omitted from the fictional UK in the 'Whoniverse'.

Actually, we don't have to prove any such thing. We merely note that neither NI or the UK was explicitly referenced in the primary source. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember if the United Kingdom was specifically mentioned in Torchwood. The United Kingdom was mentioned several times in the Whoniverse, in which Torchwood is set, though. The mention of Northern Ireland is not relevant.

I'm not sure that Sutherland or Rutland were mentioned in the Whoniverse. Yet you do not deem to exclude those counties from the region.

August/September 2007: 3RR notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Torchwood Institute. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

(This is by way of a note to let you know of policy on the number of reverts one can reasonably make; you're now at three reverts.) --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 22:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What a ridiculous thing to do!

How many reverts are you at by now?

And with regard to claims you have made here:

An edit war is something you appear to be engaged in. Have you issued yourself with a similar warning, or did you get someone else to do that for you?

I didn't revert - I made correct changes, which I believe you reverted.

So I warn you back - please do not repeatedly revert edits - you may be blocked for edit warring. It is of course only fair that you be blocked from editing here also, as one side of this thing you decided to call an "edit war", yes?

---

Do you want to include the reply I left at your talk page? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 00:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to answer any of the points I made to you?

As no rational explanation is forthcoming as to the reason why you keep reverting my edits, I hereby forewarn you that I will be re-instating the "good faith" edits I have previously made. I will possibly make one change per edit so we can narrow down whether you have a problem with the United Kingdom in general, or if there is something more specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.36.167 (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Adeola Oshodi removed

Why was her name taken off the article? She had a role in the fall of London, and she's related to Martha. BethEnd 15:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I added her in yesterday, she was removed by User:OZOO with the claim that she wasn't important. I added her back in today since I feel she is more important than say "Samuel" and she has an entry, unlike Singh. If she is to be removed again, I'd like to see discussion of it.Shsilver 15:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Samuel" is important because it was relevant to the ongoing Cyberman story arc. Will ^(talk) 15:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of word 'Slavery'?

I may just be being pedantic, but is the use of the work slavery in the mention of Charles Gaskell really correct? Almost all Western nations and their colonies had abolished slavery by this point (1901) (See Abolition_of_slavery_timeline). I feel a term such as racial discrimination or simply racism would be more suitable and accurate, linking to the Racism article. Worldbeing21:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd go along with that. And while that bit's being rewritten "two further agents" isn't really correct; the female one is Alice Guppy again. Daibhid C (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Personnel

I think that the Torchwood Three personnel from "To The Last Man", "Fragments" and "Exit Wounds" should be added. They're in the list of characters page, why not the Torchwood Institute page? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability and clutter. They're ALL listed on Tardis Wiki, however.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

GAR

I have nominated the article for a community review of its GA status, which can be found here. Please comment there for ways of improving the article and helping it to maintain its GA status. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cultural Impact

Whilst the 'Cultural Impact' section is good, it seems odd to me for a fictitious institute to have had cultural impact; it would seem more appropriate for this to be part of the article for the Torchwood/Doctor Who shows, or for the Whoniverse article. Is there a Wikipedia policy on this sort of thing? PoisonedPigeon (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead Section

Could you explain to me why lead sections must be written in a certain way, and what that certain way is, in accordance with the page guidelines. The lead section was amended to include the 'official' government information service description of the Torchwood institute from the most recently broadcast series but has subsequently been reverted to an earlier and less tidy edit. I made the edit in good faith attempting to be true to the programme, but I am new to Wikipedia and so would benefit from someone more experienced with wiki edits who will improve the edit rather than merely revert to a more dated version. Thank you. Politicalwizard (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Politicalwizard

The leads of articles are written so as to establish a basic frame of reference for the reader, and the guidelines are set out here. Different Wikiprojects have minor variations on that, but that's the starting point. Rodhullandemu 19:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Torchwood India Picture

Should we have a picture of Torchwood India i could only find 2 pictures but they are from the BBC would fair use be ok for this purpose to illustrate what Torchwood India look like the link are below let me know what you think.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/images/episode/b00lg4nq_640_360.jpg

http://www.bbcshop.com/Science-Fiction/Torchwood-The-Golden-Age/invt/9781408426654&temp=enlarged&layout=empty

Sfxprefects (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Torchwood Institute. 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/20070111003133/http://www.torchwood.org.uk/html/glove/images/safe1.jpg to http://www.torchwood.org.uk/html/glove/images/safe1.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208023302/http://www.torchwood.org.uk/html/telepathy/im.shtml to http://www.torchwood.org.uk/html/telepathy/im.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630095547/http://www.torchwood.org.uk/html/gwen/witnesses.shtml to http://www.torchwood.org.uk/html/gwen/witnesses.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070121192915/http://www.torchwood.org.uk/html/rhys/victoria.shtml to http://www.torchwood.org.uk/html/rhys/victoria.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214003658/http://www.torchwood.org.uk/html/welcome/rift.shtml to http://www.torchwood.org.uk/html/welcome/rift.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061219195256/http://www.torchwood.org.uk/html/welcome/introduction.shtml to http://www.torchwood.org.uk/html/welcome/introduction.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080403051312/http://www.bbc.co.uk/torchwood/sites/arg/pages/episodes.shtml?folder=tw_case_ep12 to http://www.bbc.co.uk/torchwood/sites/arg/pages/episodes.shtml?folder=tw_case_ep12
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061219195435/http://www.torchwood.org.uk/html/ianto/im_3.shtml to http://www.torchwood.org.uk/html/ianto/im_3.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070129064609/http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk48/feature_torchwood.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk48/feature_torchwood.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061212023609/http://www.torchwood.org.uk/html/gwen/psych.shtml to http://www.torchwood.org.uk/html/gwen/psych.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011125943/http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/08_august/15/torchwood.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/08_august/15/torchwood.shtml

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)