Talk:Torchwood (series)

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? --


 * 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)
 * Everything that isnt a parody is canon. thats no different to other scifi shows. take any show, if it isnt a parody, its in. I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! Bigredrabbit (talk to me) 09:22, May 19, 2010 (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There were some things here dating back to 2006 that were not only outdated, but incorrect, plus a lot of other things that needed tweaking.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)