More actions
The rumours on this page is getting out of hand. Is it not getting to the point now that anyone can put anything down, potentially even vandalism, because there is no citation?
"Jacks parents are to have a starring role"
"Katy Manning is to reprise her 70s role as Jo Grant"
Both statements are as vaild as the majority of so-called rumours on this page. I respectfully put it to the mods of this wiki that unless a source can be cited that the rumour is not allowed. This should not only include Torchwood, but the forthcoming DW specials and also any future SJA.
Smokin Fish 23:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I like reading the rumours they are intertaining and fun Catkind121 10:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Since when was that the point of them? Bad Wolf Bad Wolf 14:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've protected the article page from unregistered user edits and will soon make some additions to our layout policy page or somewhere regarding rumours. --Tangerineduel 13:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Asking editors to source their rumors shouldn't be too much of a request. If the rumor is actually out there in the wild and can be sourced then I would say it's valid to let it stay. If the rumor isn't sourced by the contributing editor, then it should go. Just my $0.02. --Raukodraug 19:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Rummors
Some of teh rummors are so stupid like jacks dosn't die i agree rumores are getting out of hand. Darth Vader601 17:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to organise rumors into
'Trailer based rumors and common rumors' like water of mars has been organised into what do you reckon?
Assassin of death 14:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Assassin of death
- I'd go with how it's worded on the Waters of Mars article 'Speculation based on trailer etc' (or something similar, only because anything from the trailer is information, unless it's extrapolation based on what's in the trailer (which is basically guessing, so any of that we can get rid of), but yeah sounds like a good idea, anything to whittle down the rumours. --Tangerineduel 15:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes that will work better.
does anyone mind if the owen and tosh rumors are removed as it has ben announced they will not appear.
Assassin of death 09:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Assassin of death
- Go right ahead, I mean those two were just vague guesses anyway, unless you want to try and find a source that states it. --Tangerineduel 11:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Have now started work on spliting rumors into two section as mentioned above hopefully this will help Assassin of death 12:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Assassin of death
Story numbering
I took out the story numbering in the infobox for now, as we don't know yet whether this is a single 5-part story, or 5 interconnected stories. If it's only a single story - with 3 writers - then it should only have a single story number. (Shades of the Trial of a Time Lord argument). 23skidoo 14:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Descriptions of the series and comments by RTD seem to imply that this is a single, 5 part story. --Raukodraug 18:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Episode number
I thought you might just want to put somewhere that there were originally going to be 13 episodes, but it was cut to 5.Source --Sgtcook 19:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Episode title
Are you sure about that? Day one - Day five? Since there's already an episode called Day One, it doesn't make sense.
- I might be making an assumption hear, but since the whole Series carries the title of Children of Earth then the individual episode titles of Day One, Day Two, etc may in fact best be considered sub-titles, such as Children of Earth: Day One, Children of Earth: Day Two, etc. --Raukodraug 02:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Series 3 as a Single Story
Currently Series 3 is being treated as a single story, but shouldn't the three Radio plays that came out this week also be considered part of Series 3, just like TW: Lost Souls is considered part of Series 2? I'm thinking that the information on this page should be moved to a TW: Children of Earth page and that this page should be revised to be a proper Series 3 page along the lines of the Series 2 (Torchwood) page. --Raukodraug 03:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Totally agree.. Each episode should have its own entry. Smokin Fish 14:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Audio dramas are not considered part of the TV season, so should be treated separately. Lost Souls wasn't considered part of Series 2 - what is the source for that claim??? 23skidoo 15:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, these aren't CD based Audio Dramas. They are radio plays produced and aired on BBC Radio. As for my source it is simply that Lost Souls is currently listed on the Series 2 (Torchwood) page and that both that radio episode and that the three new radio episodes all have Series 2 listed in their infoboxes by previous editors. I tend to be inclined to treat them as part of the series seeing as how they air on the BBC (yes, radio, but they still air). Whether that is the correct interpretation or not can be discussed though.
- My primary concern in this is consistency of the Series pages. The fact that the Series 3 (Torchwood) page has an episode infobox and is completely inconsistent with the Series 1 (Torchwood) and Series 2 (Torchwood) pages is what I'm mostly wondering about. Before I go and make a significant edit to bring it all in line I wanted to open a bit of discussion --Raukodraug 02:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)