Talk:Torchwood (series): Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(→‎canonicity of Torchwood: revert my reply. I didn't notice this discussion was a year old. My points are moot.)
Line 20: Line 20:


::::canon policy for this Wiki says books count just as much as the television series. (the [[Whoniverse]] has a pretty loose and vague definition of canon, BTW, compared to other universes.) also, I think that the television series have gotten pretty well documented elsewhere on the web. --[[User:Stardizzy2|Stardizzy2]] 15:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::::canon policy for this Wiki says books count just as much as the television series. (the [[Whoniverse]] has a pretty loose and vague definition of canon, BTW, compared to other universes.) also, I think that the television series have gotten pretty well documented elsewhere on the web. --[[User:Stardizzy2|Stardizzy2]] 15:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
: Although the BBC hasn't made a firm declaration of what is canon and what isn't canon (unlike Paramount and Star Trek) - save, perhaps for ''[[Scream of the Shalka]]'' - there is generally no debate that everything shown on TV is canonical, and that includes the spinoffs and the TV movie. There's been enough references back and forth (all the spinoffs are referenced on the main Doctor Who series, including [[K-9 & Company]]), and we've now had footage from the TV movie incorporated into ''[[The Next Doctor]]'' that I don't see this as a point of debate anymore. As for the other works like novels, audios, etc. that's a matter of debate, but the BBC, bless them, has yet to come out and say "ignore them - they aren't canon" the way Paramount has with Star Trek's expanded universe. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 15:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


==Article revision==
==Article revision==
There were some things here dating back to 2006 that were not only outdated, but incorrect, plus a lot of other things that needed tweaking. I've given the article a once-over and a bit of a nip and tuck. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 15:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There were some things here dating back to 2006 that were not only outdated, but incorrect, plus a lot of other things that needed tweaking. I've given the article a once-over and a bit of a nip and tuck. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 15:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:36, 3 August 2009

disambiguation

Forgive me if this is out of line, I'm still very new to all of this, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but shouldn't there be a disambiguation page here, with one leading to the show and the other to the agency?

--The Professor 02:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect all the information about the agency would be put in Torchwood Institute. Azes13 03:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We may need to do this when the series starts, depending on what Jack and his team actually call themselves; somehow I don't imagine they'll be referring to their operation as the Torchwood Institute (we already know they're a "rogue" group). -- Guybrush 01:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

canonicity of Torchwood

Is Torchwood (series) canon? 66.215.20.28 02:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Why wouldn't it be? -<Azes13 03:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)>-
Yeah, I asked that before I'd had a good look around and realized that just about everything is canon. Not entirely sure if I like that as it tends to get overwhelming, and some of it, especially the book series' tend to retcon whenever they feel like it. It certainly does keep it simple! 66.215.20.28 16:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need to worry about the books so much. As far as I'm concerned, the TV series is the only absoloute canon, and the Torchwood series doesn't really tend to introduce or change any many new concepts. Taccer 07 22:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
canon policy for this Wiki says books count just as much as the television series. (the Whoniverse has a pretty loose and vague definition of canon, BTW, compared to other universes.) also, I think that the television series have gotten pretty well documented elsewhere on the web. --Stardizzy2 15:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Article revision

There were some things here dating back to 2006 that were not only outdated, but incorrect, plus a lot of other things that needed tweaking. I've given the article a once-over and a bit of a nip and tuck. 23skidoo 15:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)