Talk:Torchwood Three

Merge with the Hub article?
What do y'all think? --***Stardizzy*** 06:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, ok, unless someone seriously expands this into a larger article... 15:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why not. Joker1138 ( The Hub )

Info?
While I know there is no canonical source for this, when John Barrowman was interviewed on Al Murray's Happy Hour broadcast last Saturday (yeah, I know its a bit late for me to comment on it) he said that Jack Harkness himself built the Hub because he believed that, one day, the Doctor would have to return to the Rift to refuel. If this shouldn't go in the article, then perhaps should there be a little note about it in a "Behind the Scenes" section? 15:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * this belongs in Behind the Scenes, for sure, if you want to put it in there. but if the official Torchwood website contradicts this, take it out. I can't remember offhand if the website gives a date for Torchwood 3's construction. --***Stardizzy*** 15:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing about it in the "Welcome to Torchwood" section of the website, and I doubt it'll be anywhere else. And considering that Jack was around in 1909, 1941, the early 21st century and the 51st century, I don't see how any given date would contradict him building the Hub. 16:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ah, but we don't know if his working in 1909 happened before or after The Empty Child in Jack's timeline! not relevant, just saying. --***Stardizzy*** 16:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really matter, as it shows regardless that Jack could travel through time if he wanted to, so there's no reason why he couldn't have travelled some time from 200,100 to, say. 1930 or whenever Torchwood 3 was built. Although he'd probably need a working time machine on the Dalek-distraught Game Station...
 * Plus, all the Torchwood 3 crew in Everything Changes and in other episodes viewed him as a mystery, and as he was the captain, all this may imply that he was there long before the other members joined. 16:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Employees
Shouldn't Owen and Toshiko be token of the current members list as they are deceased?Sgtcook 12:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is Andy Davidson listed...and where is the source for Mickey? Plus, the Doctor doesn't work for them althewriter 22:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)althewriter

How do you know Ianto is dead??
How do you know Ianto is dead??
 * Erm...he died! His lifeless body was lying next to all the other bodies. Whoniverse93 21:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Torchwood USA
Would the Term (for series 4-) be "Torchwood three" or "Torchwood" Joshoedit 05:44, January 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just "Torchwood" -- the old structure and organisation is dead, and what's left are 2 motivated ex-members and some new people operating under the name of the old organisation.Liam Mars 12:35, September 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Rex, Esther and Vera were readded as crew AGAIN, with the claim that the new Torchwood team is a continuation of Torchwood Three (including two FORMER members) and that they're part of Jack's team, both of which are technically true, but that still doesn't mean that they're Torchwood Three itself! -- Tybort (talk page) 18:12, September 20, 2011 (UTC)

Torchwood Three VS. Torchwood 3
In Children of Earth: Day One, the picture on the right is an official document, as accessed by Lois Habiba in 2009:

You can clearly see that it says "Torchwood 3" not "Torchwood Three." Do we have any other in-universe spellings? Any other times this specific branch of Torchwood is written on-screen? Hmm?

SOTO ☎ 11:23, February 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * A discussion back in Forum:Torchwood Three or Torchwood 3 raised this issue. In it The Twilight Streets (novel) is cited as using the text rather than numerical form for Torchwood Three.
 * Your screenshot does open the question and I'll fall back to our Forum:Artifacts or Artefacts of Rassilon?, we'll need to establish how it's used in various sources and which format "Torchwood 3" or "Torchwood Three" is used more often. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:06, February 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * I love it when you respond. :-) Anyways, I'll look through the original discussion. But I think the fact that this, in-universe, is an official document gives this a little more weight. That was a government file, right? And the government started Torchwood, didn't it? (well... the Queen, but same thing)
 * [[file:SmallerOnTheOutside.png|13px]] SOTO ☎ 14:13, February 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well that was a short discussion... Basically, The Twilight Streets calls it "Torchwood 3." That's about it. And the website, but I but we had a discussion that, even though we never reached a full consensus (yet), it does seem to be leaning towards the websites not being part of the DWU. What other Torchwood books are there? We need to look through them. As it stands now, it seems to be leaning towards Torchwood 3.


 * The discussion actually says The Twilight Streets uses "text" by that means the word "Three".
 * The nature of the in-universes-ness doesn't lend any more weight than it appearing in a novel. They are essentially exactly the same thing. One it appears on screen the other is within the words of the book but both are within the narrative. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:31, February 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood me. I didn't mean because it's on TV; whereas the other's only in a novel. Good lord, no. I meant because one's from an official government document; whereas the other's only in the narrative. You know, it might be known colloquially as "Torchwood Three," which is why it might be casually called that in narration, but, officially, it's "Torchwood 3."
 * I mean, hey, the city where I grew up officially had extra caps and a missing hyphen... I made no sense. But we didn't use it that way. Heck, even the city's website doesn't use that name! But it's still the official name. [[file:SmallerOnTheOutside.png|13px]] SOTO ☎ 14:41, February 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope. Didn't misunderstand you.
 * Just because it's on an "official government site", that is still part of the narrative of Children of Earth. It carries no more weight than any of the text of the novel. They are both narratives.
 * The website is part of the episode's narrative text. Just as the sets, the costumes, the music playing in the background and whether the characters drink coffee, tea or hot bovril it's all part of the DWU of the story. The website is exactly the same as anything mentioned in the text of a novel. They are both held equal, just because it's in-universe an official government site doesn't mean it holds more weight over the the text of a novel. As the whole novel is in-universe essentially. Just as the whole of the episode is in-universe. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:50, February 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that "Torchwood 3" might be the official name, as it was called when started, and as it's called in official documents; whereas "Torchwood Three" is what everyone calls it when they're not signing papers. "Torchwood Three" is used by the actual Torchwood Three personnel in the novel, am I correct? So, while they, and a lot of people, might spell it like that, it's not the correct official spelling of the organisation. Which is why, if these are the only two sources we can find (which I highly doubt), I would suggest renaming it to "Torchwood 3" but leave a redirect and mention in the opening statement that it's "known colloquially as Torchwood Three."
 * However, first, we must search for other sources. I'll take a look at a list of all Torchwood books. [[file:SmallerOnTheOutside.png|13px]] SOTO ☎ 15:08, February 15, 2013 (UTC)