# Talk:To the Last Man (Torchwood)

Could whoever it is please stop adding premature plot summaries to the article?  If we had any sourced detail about the program we would add it, but we only have various vague teasers, which don't tell us anything signicant about the plot.  We'll know soon enough when it is broadcast on BBC2. --Tony Sidaway 02:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC).
I'm not the one adding them, but I don't think that the BBC Press office is a rather key place for sourced details.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk5/wed.shtml  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.255.171 (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 

What's the betting that that bunker report that was on the original Season 1 version of the website refers to this episode?  That's seriously cool forward planning [and seeding], if you ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.10.101 (talk) 

At the time, fans were complaining that it was a Jack-related continuity error. This? Cool. Wesbite? Canon.~ZytheTalk to me! 02:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted this figure added by GerardMcGarry, as it is incorrect in the context used. There were 346 military executions during the Great War, the bulk of which were pardoned in 2006. Of the 346, 40 were for murder, treason or mutiny, and were not pardoned. The pardoned 306 were cases of desertion, cowardice, and other offences, by no means all of which can be attributed to shell-shock in the manner suggested. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree Nick, Capt Jack quoted the number of 300 himself when talking to Tosh or Gwen about the policy of declaring shell-shocked soldiers as cowards. I actually researched that figure prior to posting and it was listed as 306 on several articles on the web. I don't mind if you don't reinstate it, but I think the statistic still holds in the context of the episode.--GerardMcGarry (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point - not all of the 306 can be attributed to shell shock, and none of the other 40, therefore Jack's claim of "more than 300" is wrong. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It's all a bit silly anyway.  If you want an accurate estimate for the number of shell-shock victims executed for cowardice, you don't go to a writer of fiction.  --Tony Sidaway 18:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that some editors are desperate to avoid anything that looks like criticism on this page. The effects of shell shock are certainly a major factor in the plot; for the writer to have got details relating to them - and other things - wrong cannot be excused as "artistic licence" or "not warranted". I would suggest that the editors who are so keen to excise anythinq that casts down on this episode to take a look at the likes of Saving Private Ryan, U-571, A Bridge Too Far , etc., and they will note that highlighting legitimate errors in both fiction and part-fictional works is an established practice on Wikipedia. Neither this episode in particular or Torchwood in general can claim some sort of dispensation, just some editors don't like the idea of it.
Edokter's claim that pointing out such errors constitutes "original research" is particularly laughable - if not hypocritical - given that they left in place the entirely speculative "continuity" section, so beloved of fans of this series and/or Dr Who. In fact, I would note that pages for other episodes include continuity or other errors, e.g. Day One (the disappearing receptionist, and the population database search), Ghost Machine ("claustrophobic"/"agoraphobic" mix-up), etc. You can't have it both ways. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people don't get artistic licence, and seem surprised to see "factual errors" in works such as Doctor Who and Torchwood that are openly and avowedly works of fantasy, about events and situations that never happened, that never could happen, and nobody is under the illusion that the writer intends the reader to believe that they're even logically possible.  I'm not sniping at editors on this wiki, it's just part of the human condition. --Tony Sidaway 14:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not questioning your credibility... Any uncited information automatically constitutes original research and is removed; that's not me, that's policy speaking. Now that you have cited it, that problem is gone. The issue remains however if this information falls within the scope of this article. As this TV series is set in a fictional universe (which even involves time traveling), you should ask yourself if it is really necessary to compare in-universe events with the real world in so much detail.  — Edokter • Talk •  15:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added a link to a thorough episode guide which I wrote for Unreality TV. It has been deleted twice, although a link to a less informative piece remains. Would whoever is doing this please explain the reason for deletion, as the guide was written the same night the show aired.--GerardMcGarry (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It was removed because it fails our policy on extenal linking. Basically, links to blogs and fan sites are not permitted. The other link has gained some authority on the subject and is used as a reference. Also, having written the article yourself introduces a possible conflict of interest. That is not necessarely a bad thing, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a link directory, but an encyclopedia.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. I submitted the link because I believe it would be of use to other fans of the show. Regardless of the blog platform, it is still an episode guide. Anyway, I will leave it to your discretion whether to reinstate it or not.--GerardMcGarry (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems yet again that certain editors with brook nothing that appears to inherently criticises this episode. It seems particularly bizarre that the historical origin of the title of the episode is "allowed" to stay, and yet pointing out two that two historical errors in it - one of which is a significant "supporting factor" is the detail of the point, driving audience reaction - is "too embarrassing" to remain. As I have noted above, the pages for other episodes of Torchwood have similar errors noted, so why not this one?  What makes it a special case? The flip excuse that the series "isn't a history lesson" is beneath contempt. The writer of the episode undeniably based elements of the plot on historical fact, clearly in a way that is inherently critical in order to provoke viewer sympathy. Jack's quote of "more than 300" is blatently designed to quantify the scale of what the author is condemning, so it is perfectly justifiable to point out that it is actually wrong. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the episode once more; Jack never actually stated that any soldier was executed for being "shellshocked", he only states that Tommy was executed for cowardice, that  soldiers suffering from shellshock being returned to the front often collapsed under fear, and that "more then three hundred" were executed. But he did not establish a direct relation between shellshock and the executions. So this section itself is asuming the error, and therefor not neutral. I am taking it out. Prove me wrong (with episode quotes) if you believe me to be in error, but until then I have no reason to believe there were any errors presented.  — Edokter • Talk •  13:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This is certainly not my recollection of the dialogue in question. Jack's quoting of the "more than 300" figure is a direct response to Toshiko's disbelief that a "shell-shocked" soldier would be executed for cowardice. It is clear that the number quoted is based on the actual number of historical execution, but is a miscronstrued interpretation of what it was. I will check the exact dialogue tonight. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Having now checked, the exact wording is:
JACK: When he returns to 1918 he'll revert back to who he was. He'll be shell-shocked. And so he'll be executed by the British army for cowardice.
TOSHIKO: They can't shoot him for that!
JACK: Lots of soldiers who were shell-shocked recovered enough to be sent back to the front, but once they were there they broke down again.
TOSHIKO: So they kill him?
JACK: More than 300 of them.
Sorry, but which ever way you look at at, that's a direct claim that "more than 300" shell-shock soldiers were executed, which is of course completely false. The current wording of, "Jack states that 'more than 300' British soldiers were executed" is misleading, because Jack is clearly referring to shell-shocked soldiers specifically, not soldiers in general. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I have emphasized above what Jack says the soldiers were being executed for. But in any case, as the current note in the article stands, it is not misleading and the text clearly explains the correct numbers. So I see no problem here.  — Edokter • Talk •  00:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, please do not amend my comments in the way you did - since I had already emphasised some of the dialogue based on how it is actually delivered, anyone else reading the above would not be clear on what you emphasised or what I did.
Secondly, I'm absolutely stunned that you're maintaining that the impression given is the the "more than 300" applies to soldiers shot for cowardice as a whole, rather than - as it clearly is - soldiers with "shell-shock" shot for cowardice. The current text is misleading because it does not make clear that Jack is taking about a specific sub-set of executions. In any case, since only 18 of the 306 soldiers were actually shot for the offence of cowardice, it's actually even more wrong if you want to maintain that that's what he's saying. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
"Jack states that "more than 300" British soldiers were executed." What is factual incorrect with that statement? I have intentionally left out what you perceive Jack claims as to why they were executed. Everything in the article is correct now, so I see no reason to continue this discussion.  — Edokter • Talk •  14:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that the vast majority of people hearing those words in the episode or reading the verbatim quotes above would take the "more than 300" to mean specifically "shell-shocked" soldiers shot for cowardice. There is no qualification in what Jack says that can be logically taken to mean he is talking about all executions for all military offences. It's an entirely logical chain:
JACK: When he returns to 1918 he'll revert back to who he was. He'll be shell-shocked. And so he'll be executed by the British army for cowardice.
TOSHIKO: They can't shoot him for that!
JACK: Lots of soldiers who were shell-shocked recovered enough to be sent back to the front, but once they were there they broke down again.
TOSHIKO: So they kill him?
JACK: More than 300 of them.
There is nothing in that exchange which suggests that Jack is talking about all executions, but plenty that he is specifically talking about "shell-shocked" soldiers shot for cowardice. Personally, I'm at a loss as to how anyone with English as a first language would not to "get" that. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
My only objection here is that it seems perverse to criticise this story, which is avowedly fantasy fiction and features fantastic events, on grounds of historical accuracy.  It isn't meant to be accurate.  Nobody in his right mind would mistake the events depicted in the story as a representation of a historical event.  The historical event is used merely as a hook upon which to hang a rather beautiful and moving story, much as the Pearl Harbor bombings are used as a setting for From Here to Eternity.
There are no time travelers, there is no Torchwood, there is no Captain Jack, and no Tommy Brockless.  They're actors.  They lied.  --Tony Sidaway 13:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you are being disingenous in the extreme. The writer of this episode clearly decided to base the plot around historical facts, i.e. the First World War, the nature of the fighting (i.e. Jack's description), the phenomenon known as "shell-shock" and the treatment of those suffering from it, the naming of the lead guest character "Tommy" as a clear reference to Tommy Atkins, etc. Of course as a whole it is fiction, but then so is  - to name one of many examples - Saving Private Ryan, yet it is also based on historical fact, and so the highlighting of errors and contradictions in that respect is an established part of the film's Wikipedia page. What exactly makes this episode of Torchwood the exception to this practice that you seem to think it should be?
I would again note that the origin of the episode's title - as well as dialogue within it - has been "allowed" to remain. By your logic, it should go as well, because if certain aspects of the episode are - as you seem to contend - not based on interpretations of actual historical facts, then how do we know that in the "Torchwood Universe" that it was that particular speech that was being referred to? The same goes for naming the lead guest character "Tommy". By your logic we should not include its clear origins, because for all we know, in the "Torchwood Universe" the name "Tommy Atkins" may have no such significance? Similarly, do we take the position that in the "Torchwood Universe" ordinary soldiers were called "private offciers"? Or do we in fact take the logical view that they were called "privates" as they were/are in ours, and that either the line as written or the actor's delivery was a mistake? If we accept the latter, then what precisely is wrong with highlighting it, when such errors are routinely highlighted on Wikipedia pages for other films and TV programmes in general and - as has happened - past episodes of Torchwood in particular?
When all is said and done, it seems that certain editors are motived by nothing more than a desire to present this episode and/or this series in the best possible light, and to thus suppress anything that might possibly be construed as a "criticism." Tom Sidaway's eulogy of the episode as "a rather beautiful and moving story" betrays this bias perfectly. What, exactly, are you afraid of? I would remind you, though, that none of you own this page any more than anyone else does. It is not your own private PR execise, and for you to treat it as such is contrary to the most basic principles of Wikipedia. Quite frankly, your continued revisionism comes across as pathetic and childish. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The thing is that some editors don't mind listing errors and goofs.  However, other editors think that things like those are only appropriate on fan-sites and not something that is trying to be encyclopedic.  The editors aren't trying to present this episode in the best light but rather Wikipedia -- hence things like minimalisation of trivia sections, shorter plot sections and the elimination of non-free images (which is plaguing all the episode articles at the moment).  The point is that there's no bias towards the story, there's a bias towards policy -- which may or may not be justified, but that's another issue best discussed in their respective places.  DonQuixote (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but this isn't something trivial like saying Tommy is wearing a cut of uniform that wasn't actually introduced until 1919, the issue of the number of executions is an important part of the framing of the plot and how the "issue" is presented to the viewer. In any case, if people dislike "error/goof" sections, then one wonders why the editors involved here have not similarly expunged the errors highlighted on the pages for the two other episodes, that I mentioned some time ago. I am surprised that if they think errors "don't count", that they didn't deal with them as soon as I drew their attention to them.
One could also say that the desire to "streamline" Wikipedia in the manner you suggest should also extend to the - in many cases frankly tenuous - "continuity" sections that are a particular charcateristic of pages about episodic television series, Torchwood being no exception. One could also ask why it is self-evidently deemed acceptable to highlight some historical details on this page, but pointing out where historical errors have been made is not? "Hypocritical" seems the only logical description for this. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, don't shoot the messenger.  I'm one of the editors that don't mind goof sections.  I also understand what the other editors are trying to do.  As I've said, whether all this is justified or not is another issue entirely. DonQuixote (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as trying to preset Torchwood in the "best possible light". However, Wikipedia must preset it's information in an as neutral way as possible. "Errors" and "goofs" do not fit within this requirement. I have however reinstated the information, as I do think it warrants mentioning. But I have done so in a neutral way. I hope this compromise meets everyone's approval.  — Edokter • Talk •  16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You know, we might have strong differences of opinion, but phrases like "you are being disingenous in the extreme" don't deserve a response.
I've put my point of view, others will put their points of view, and we'll go with consensus.  There's no need to accuse one another of intellectual dishonesty. --Tony Sidaway 19:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


### RfC
RfC response: Based on the cited dialogue above (which all parties seem to agree is accurate), it certainly implies, if not outrightly states, that being shell-shocked and a coward were synonymous in WWI and thus shell-shocked people were executed for cowardice.  At the very least, the character Toshiko drew that conclusion, which alone is grounds for real-world clarification.  I don't think clarification is mandatory at all, but since Wikipedia is based in the real-word, and fiction is encouraged to be presented from an out-of-universe perspective, it certainly isn't against policy to clarify that fact.  Escpecially since this is just one point.  It would best be handled with a footnote, maybe using the {{cnote}}/{{cref}} system, so as not to disrupt the prose.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, my perspective is that these dramas (and most dramas of any kind), are riddled with inaccuracies, and in particular the semi-scientific setting leads to dozens of distortions of science as well as history.  I wonder if we don't draw a line somewhere will we see people going back and pointing out "Historical inaccuracies" in The Romans (another Doctor Who-based story first broadcast nearly forty-three years ago!)
For instance, Nero is played as a middle-aged man, but the Emperor Nero was in his mid-twenties in AD 64, when the story is set.  Nero is shown deliberately destroying the city by the Great Fire of Rome, which is generally recognised as a later calumny; the only contemporary chronicler who wrote extensively about the fire was Tacitus who was a young child at the time of the fire.  His version has Nero in Antium at the time of the fire, and says he hurried back to Rome to coordinate the firefighting effort.  Tacitus also reports that there were rumors that Nero started the fire, and to combat these Nero had documents forged to point the finger at Christians tortured until they confessed.  Now that's just one Doctor Who story out of many hundreds, and two historical inaccuracies recalled off-hand from my sole viewing of the programme over forty years ago.  I'm sure that if I were to watch it again I could spot many more. Are we really going to hold self-avowed fantasy fiction to such a degree of rigor? --Tony Sidaway 20:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Nobody would dispute that Torchwood is fiction, but in using a historical setting or details, as with other productions, there is a fine line between what the audience will accept as "flexible" and what they will expect to be "true". Much of the episode is grounded in what the audience will see as being accurate or acceptable, while at the same time assuming that anything they are unfamiliar with is also "right". The title of the episode and the reference to it in the dialogue is a case in point. The vast majority of the audience will be unfamiliar with its actual historical origin, and would expect it to be based on a real statement by someone specifically named in the episode, regardless of whether they have heard of General Haig or not, although I would suspect that many have. If Tommy had described seeing an alien on the battlefield, we would accept that as fiction wuthin the context of Torchwood, but if he described witnessing a particular atrocity commited by the Germans, most would assume that it was based on a similar or actual event or events.
Even 90 years on, capital courts martial are still a highly contentious, emotive, and indeed political issue, as evidenced by the lengthy debates on the issue in Parliament (not to mention the legislative bodies of Ireland, Canada, etc.)  which culminated in the blanket pardon just 15 months ago. To compare it to playing around with history in a story set in Roman times is fatuous. To many people on either side of the debate  - i.e. those who pressed for the pardon and those who resisted it -  misrepresenting the circumstances or the number of men executed by the British army during WW1 would be considered as crass and offensive as - intentionally or not - down-playing the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust by 50% or inflating them my 100% in a drama just for dramatic effect. It is clearly an issue that the author of the episode feels strongly about, if only to use it as hook to engage the audience's sympathy for the lead guest character. The author could have chosen to portray Tommy a physically wounded soldier, who subsequently died in battle. This would still have been a tragedy for him personally that he would wish to avoid (indeed, we can assume that he thinks he will be killed in action), and Toshiko's resistance to sending him to his death would not have been significantly less. That the author chose to invoke both "Shell-shock" and executions is therefore a significant factor and cannot be dismissed as mere verisimilitude of backgrough detail. In fact, viewed objectively, it could be said that this is, in fact, one of the "issues" around which the episode hangs. We do not have a definitive statement by those involved in the producion saying that, but everything suggests that it is.
I would contend that the dialogue in question - whether intentionally or not - implies that "more than 300" soldiers who had both previously suffered "shell shock" were executed for "cowardice". Perhaps a sliver of ambiguity could be allowed that it may mean all "shell-shocked" soldiers who were shot for all offences, or just those shot for "cowardice", but either way the number of "more than 300" is demonstrably false. On either side, nobody has ever suggested that the 37 cases of murder or the three of mutiny could be excused on the grounds of "shell shock" which leaves the 306, i.e.:
266 - Desertion
18 - Cowardice
7 - Quitting post
5 - Disobedience
6 - Striking a senior officer or NCO
2 - Sleeping on post
2 - Casting away arms in the face of the enemy
(To put these figures into context, only 10% of death sentences were carried out; at least 91 executions were of men who were under suspended sentences for previous crimes, at least 40 being previous death sentences that had been commuted. The 266 shot for desertion represented only 0.85% of the 31,367 tried for that offence, out of 115,005 cases. The two shot for sleeping on post were the only ones out of 100,000 tried for that offence.)
Thus, if - as it logically appears - the dialogue refers to "shell-shocked" soldiers executed for "cowardice", the "more than 300" is a gross error, given that in reality that number is 18 at the most, while if it refers to cases of "cowardice" regardless of "shell-shock" or not, then it is exactly 18.  Those who have actually studied the trial documentation (which exists for in 280 of the 306 non murder/mutiny cases), none ascribe the majority of cases to "shell-shock"; the co-author of the recent and most exhaustive book saying: "The number of rogues outnumbered those with mitigating circumstances by about six to one. Many were repeat deserters who showed no sign of shell shock. An individual re-assessment of these cases would undoubtedly reconvict the majority."[1] Even if we assume that "mitigating circumstances"  means "shell-shock", then it is only attributable to some 49 out of the 346 total, or 44 of the non-murder/mutiny cases - both considerably less than "more than 300". Ultimately, the error is of such magnitude that it clearly significant enough to mention, especially since it relates to an issue that is given such prominance in the episode. The current wording is insufficient, as it suggests the dialogue means something that it clearly does. I would suggest that it should read:
Jack strongly suggests that the British army executed "more than 300" shell-shocked soldiers for cowardice during the First World War. In reality, executions for all offences numbered 346, of which 40 were for murder or mutiny. The remaining 306 were for desertion (266), cowardice (18), and other offences (22). While some of these can now be attributed to shell shock, most cannot, although all 306 were posthumously pardoned in 2006.
Note that it would be inadvisable to use the current "British soldiers", as the 346 includes Canadians, New Zealand, Chinese and other colonial troops under British command. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I really don't see what the problem is with how the information is presented now. Jack states over 300 soldiers were executed, supposedly implying that they were shot for being shell-shocked. That remains a matter of interpretation. In any case, the note as it stands does not interpret Jack's statement, as neutral point of view requires, but does provide context with real-life numbers, so that the readers can form their own conclusion. Trying to vervently highlight the "error" of Jack's statement amoounts to nothing more then soapboxing, and I cannot imagine why Nick Cooper is so determined to do so.  — Edokter • Talk •  20:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's okay as it stands, if a little anoracky. --Tony Sidaway 22:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Anoracky?  — Edokter • Talk •  23:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The sort of thing an anorack would do. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, anorak. I wonder why I couldn't find the word.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I am pressing this point because there is nothing like the ambiguity in the dialogue that you suggest, and in the context of what it clearly does mean it is a massive and misleading error relating to a controversial issue. I am, of course, still perplexed by the hypocrisy of "allowing" the highlighting the real-life origins of the episode title, whereas pointing out this factual error seems to make avid editors of Torchwood pages so uncomfortable. You may speculate on my motives, but yours smack of a belief in ownership. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody agree with your proposed wording?  If not, propose a new version and see if you can get agreement.  I am reasonably happy with Edokter's version but that doesn't mean I think it's the best. --Tony Sidaway 22:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Nick's version above is OK, but only without the word "strongly"; that's a bit too interprative.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I could go with that if the "In reality" qualifier were also removed (it sounds too polemical for an encyclopedia article).  The text would thus read something like:
Jack suggests that the British army executed "more than 300" shell-shocked soldiers for cowardice during the First World War. Executions for all offences numbered 346, of which 40 were for murder or mutiny. The remaining 306 were for desertion (266), cowardice (18), and other offences (22). While some of these can now be attributed to shell shock, most cannot, although all 306 were posthumously pardoned in 2006.
Again this sounds incredibly anoracky to me, as if I went to The Romans (Doctor Who) and added a paragraph or two about Tacitus and said Nero wasn't really a fat bloke in his forties.  But I can live with it. --Tony Sidaway 23:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The date in the summary reads 2008, however, unless i'm mistaken, the events in Doctor Who, and therefore Torchwood, are still one year ahead due to the Aliens of London episode, so should it not read 2009 or simply exclude a contemporary date?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammard (talk • contribs) 02:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 

Even the Doctor Who people have probably quietly forgotten about that one, and I hope eventually the fans will too. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Consider this.  Doomsday was supposed to happen in 2007.  Let's say that Martha met the Doctor in 2008.  The Doctor and Martha traveled through space and time for series 3, however only a few days have passed since the events of the first episode and when the Doctor, Martha and Jack returned to Earth.  Therefore, conceivably, the events in Torchwood can take place in 2008 (just not February).  DonQuixote (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Even so, unless there is an explicit dating reference in the show, it is probably going to be better to not say 2008, as if any future episodes of Torchwood or D.W. could refer to this as happening in either year.--158.143.179.238 (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
All timelines of this kind are pure speculation.  Actual fictional timelines may, and most likely will, contradict one another from programme to programme, and series to series.  It's okay, though, because these events never happened in the first place.  The writers make it all up, you know. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The time line is the same, Rose was set in 2004, Aliens of London 2005 and Xmas invasion 2005 and Last of the time lords was 2007 with the stolen earth taking place in 2008.

Wouldn't it be better if the main image showed Tommy and Toshiko, since they were the main characters of this episode, as opposed to Gerald and Harriet? --DrBat (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Gerald and Harriet played a vital role. The image also shows that what is most identifyable about the episode; members of the 1918 Torchwood team.  — Edokter • Talk •  18:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe that image could be elsewhere in the article, but they only appeared in two scenes. The majority of the episode was focused on Toshiko and Tommy. --DrBat (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
We are bound by a minimum use of fair-use images, so having two images is problematic. The new image is quite undescriptive in my view.  — Edokter • Talk •  19:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Could we use another image of Tommy and Toshiko, then? The majority of the episode was focused on them, whereas Gerald and Harriet only had two scenes. --DrBat (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the image, but the old one is a bit sticky... OK, managed to purge the thumb image. If you still see the old one, purge your cache.  — Edokter • Talk •  20:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)