Talk:Jack Harkness/Archive 1

message: Do you think we should merge this entry with The Face of Boe?(AndrewAnorak 18:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the pages should be merged.  While it is clearly implied and I do think that Jack is Boe, it is not made clear enough to warrant merging.  Also, Jack and Boe, while probably the same person, are two distinct characters with different names, appearances, personalities, and actors.  After all, the different incarnations of the Doctor have separate pages.  Not to mention the fact that all the info on Boe's article would ruin Jack's otherwise excellent page.  Paul730 19:46, 30 June 2007
NOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!! because you will ruin Jack's page and it isnt true beccause there was meant to be a race of Boe's and there is only one Jack and will only ever be one. I agree about linking them as is was his nick name and could be completly unconnected. Also Boe dosent speak in an American acsent and didnt flirt with anyone so it couldnt ever be him.
Flexibe-sweet pink 20:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, while the implication is strong it isn't verified for definite and also merge would result in an very large article. I say they stay separate. --GracieLizzie 19:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The online audio podcast (I think that link will work, if not, you can click for it here) suggests that it's more than "implied". If you listen to it between 43:21.1 and about 45:30, particularly around 44:47, when Julie Gardner says "He is the Face of Boe; Captain Jack", and 45:23, when Phil Collinson says "he (John Barrowman) loves that he's the Face of Boe". They specifically say the Face of Boe, not a Face of Boe.I'm not saying the articles should be merged - apart from this, the two characters were completely distinct - but based on this, a mention as fact that they are the same, err, being, isn't wrong, and it's more than implication. --86.137.247.36 22:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if they are the same person (which they totally are!), they should still have seperate articles for the reasons I mentioned above.  Clark Kent and Superman are the same character, but have seperate articles.  Paul730 00:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keeping within the same universe, the Doctor has a good 13 articles already, and he's only 10 incarnations in, canonically.~ZytheTalk to me! 01:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep them seperate even if they are the same person as they are different characters. After all the different incarnations of The Doctor are the same person (The Doctor) but different characters (1st Doctor, 2nd Doctor, ect). Also about Jack not being able to die, that's because he has to much life force, which i'm sure has been stated either within Doctor Who or Torchwood, meaning that if he finally ran out he would die which the Face of Boe did do. The Light6 06:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, using the Doctors as a model, we put in the first appearance of each incarnation.  A link to FoB is sufficient, no need to confuse everyone.  The FoB might have been "Jack Harkness" but he is a distinct character.  "The Empty Child" is still the first appearance of "Jack" (which is also a pseudonym).  As to life force comment...remember the Face of Boe gave his life force to keep the people of New Earth alive.  If his life force is a 'fact' of the time line, it still remains... just dispersed amongst a whole race.  Looks like Jack worked out a way to finally 'die'.  Race: Jack is human, so that makes FoB human (aged and mutated over millions of years), not the other way round.  Lastly, don't get too hung up trying to tie the FoB continuity in.  We don't know when some bright spark at the BBC said "Hey guys, I've had a brilliant idea...Jack should become the Face of Boe!", and thus how much has been retconned.  It's unlikely that when the FoB was first invented for "The End of the World" that Jack's story had all been worked out.  The FoB only started reacting to the Doctor as an "old friend" in series 3.  No, that wasn't the last comment, 'cos I've thought of another.  The Doctor didn't disbelieve that Jack was FoB.  His "No!" is an exclamation of wonder and realisation.  We frequently use "No!" idiomatically to mean "Fancy that!", "That's amazing!",  "Why didn't I figure that out!".  Watch it again.  Also (I can't stop) there's only viewers' interpretation to back up the idea it was a joke.  Production and publicity seem to indicate that it was intended, and it makes sense... The Doctor couldn't understand how the FoB could live for billions of years, and Jack is (practically) immortal.  Two "impossible" events...makes sense to combine them.  It ties up all the loose ends.  Before we all get too dogmatic, we can  wait and see what the new annuals, companion files and monster books etc have to say about it... Gwinva 09:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last of the time lords

message: He is Captain Jack, but there's no such rank in the Royal Air Force. Presumably the "Captain" comes from some other aspect of his life - as a Time Agent, as the commander of his own vessel, or perhaps just as a self-awarded title to improve his image with the ladies (and gentlemen?). The photo on the page doesn't give a perfect view of his badges of rank, but it looks like he's a Flight Lieutenant in the RAF.
:We discuss this a bit in the Notes section of The Empty Child. --khaosworks 15:28, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
: This picture indicates he's either a Squadron Leader (equivalent to a USAF major ) or a Wing Commander (USAF lieutenant colonel), depending on whether the middle of the three stripes on his shoulder is thinner than the other two (hard to tell). There are definitely three stripes though, so he's not a Flight Lieutenant (two stripes). Franey 12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Doctor suggests it's probably something he thought sounded nice ("He's not really a captain"), before conceding it might have had validity at one point ("If he ever was a captain, he's been defrocked"). Jack comes back with "Actually, I quit", which seems to be a reference to his career as a Time Agent. Daibhid C 18:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In reality, none of them were given Captain's ranks, even in the Eagle Squadrons. As we note above, see the note under "Historical details" in The Empty Child discussing this. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To serve in the Americans' Eagle Squadron in Britain during WW2, the American officers had to resign their commissions in the Army Air Corps. Since, the original Captain Jack Harkness came from the US, we plainly see his Eagle Squadron badge during his appearance, can't we assume Captain is merely an honorarium by the Brits/Harkness's men that refers to his former (and resigned) Army Air Corps rank? CritCol 17:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: From what i have found Jack has been described as Omnisexual due to the fact he is from the 51st century. There's still not enough evidence to actually state it i dont think. (ItsMatt 19:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Either a script writer's or costume designer whose a little ignorant of the military methinks!  A Captain in the US army air corps of the time would have been equivalent to a Flight Lieutenant.  "Captain" has a better ring to it, but if he was meant to be a Group Captain (as in dicated by the four bands he wears) this is an air base commander equivalent to a full bird colonel of the USAAF (i.e. an RN Captain).  Though not impossible, seems a heady height of authority for Jack's apparent age but most of all, it is more difficult to match with his maverick character than that of a more junior rank such as captain/flight lieutentant.  Being a Group Captain would make him far too conspicuous and rsponsible to do his own "thing". Dainamo 10:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank 

message: As a 20 year follower of Doctor Who, I felt the addition of the following line to be important in relating this part of Jack's significance to the changing "depth" of the show:
::Although he was later resurrected, his calm "last words" of, "I kind of figured that," in response to the Daleks' order of "Exterminate!" demonstrated a highly contrasting mode of death to the traditionally horrified screams of past Dalek victims.
I welcome discussion as to whether others support this.
Please note, I chose to point to the significance by an "objective" contrast without using the article to express my personal opinion of the "classiness" of this death. Some readers may conclude that it is "classy," while other may have different value judgements, but irregardless, a meaningful contrast with most previous Dalek victims exists.
:This actually belongs more in a note for The Parting of the Ways than it does about Jack, since its significance is for its historical nature - to use it as a means of boosing Jack's character is to my mind borderline POV. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Classy Death" 

message: I know tonight's episode might help clear this up, but how contemporary is contemporary?  As of Love & Monsters and Doomsday, it is Late 2007.  We are in October 2006.  Does that woman who headed London's Torchwood still live?  Does Jack have conversations with her?  Are we before or after Army Of Ghosts and Doomsday?
:In his interview with Jonathan Ross on his radio show Saturday, John Barrowman said that Torchwood is set after "the Battle of Canary Wharf" (that is, the events of Doomsday).  I don't know how strict the continuity will be, though — it's entirely possible that they may slip up and forget that "modern-day" events in Doctor Who are a year ahead, thanks to the dates given on-screen in Aliens of London. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned at the main Torchwood article and the episode article for "Everything Changes".  I think that's sufficient — the ratings aren't directly relevant to an article about the character, are they? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contemporary

message: :"What evidence is there of this? I know his weapon from the episode "The Empty Child" was from the 51st century but that just means that he's been there. That's like saying his jacket was made in 1950 so he must be from that century. I would think it would be more reliable to use the date from the papers Gwen Copper (from the series Torchwood, not Doctor Who) found. I'm not sure if it said his birthdate, or just the date he disappeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.4.192 (talk • contribs) 
::The Doctor says, when Rose expresses shock at Jack going to "distract" Algy: "He's a fifty-first century guy. He's just a little more flexible when it comes to... dancing." Also, IIRC, in Doctor Who Confidential Barrowman refers to Jack as a Time Agent from the 51st century. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Home Era 51st Century?

message: The flashback sequence in Small Worlds shows 1909 as the year Jack was in the train in Lahore. He says the Chosen One was killed about a week earlier. The website however shows a letter dated January 1908 in which the Chosen One was already killed. Which date is more canon? V 16:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I don't know of any specific statement to this effect from the production crew, but in almost all other cases, no matter what TV show or franchise, the information in the actual episodes is considered primary. All other material, be they supporting websites or licensed books, are traditionally considered secondary. So personally I'd consider 1909 to be canonical, unless it's corrected at a later date or is referenced in a DVD commentary (or some other official manner) --Jason Kirk 01:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lahore

message: Jack states that he does not sleep in the one of the first episode - yet in the latest episode he's asleep at the beginning....
--Charlesknight 16:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He says he doesn't sleep, not that he can't, perhaps he prefers to avoid or else he has nightmares as-per Small Worlds. --GracieLizzie 20:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sleep 

message: This article is getting potentially very unwieldy, especially as we seem to be adding every little detail about Jack's life and personality, which will surely increase as the series continues. Surely, this can be pared down tremendously. Right now, it's a bit of a mess. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I dunno one persons overdetailing can be another persons "fleshing out the article". I does look a bit cluttered though, and it is beginning to star to get unwieldy as you said, perhaps it can be cut down into more appropriate sections like ==Life as a Time Agent and Con Man==, ==Travelling with the Doctor==, ==Life After the Doctor== or something similar (only better as the above isn't perfect). This would also make it easier to identify any unnecessary exposition and detailing. --GracieLizzie 22:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If more detail is added with each episode, then the length of the article would be proportionate to TV exposure, which seems appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.194.5.18 (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree that its a mess, but at the moment we know so little of Jack's backstory that we can do little more than catalog the fragments that we do know. Maybe after the series finale it'll be possible to consolidate the Torchwood material into something a little more concrete. --Jason Kirk 01:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest separating the info into sections by theme, rather than by episode. E.g. a section on backstory, with what details have been revealed in the various episodes, a section on personal life (like the relationships with Ianto and Estelle), ditto, etc. Right now, it seems that it starts that way, then becomes "Episode x: we find out this about his background, this about his personality, this about his personal life. Episode y: We find out this, this... To me it seems a confusing way of cataloguing the info that has been given, although I can see how it's easier in some ways for all the info from a new episode to be in one paragraph. 172.141.34.99 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overdetailing

message: I suggest the initial three disambig notes be combined into one:
:This article is about the character from both the Doctor Who and Torchwood television series.  For other uses, including other uses within these series, see Jack Harkness (disambiguation).
Still a bit long, but it is better than three separate lines. -- Chuq 13:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig note 

message: The article states
In Bad Wolf Jack became the first regular character in the programme's history to appear naked on screen (not counting the Third Doctor's shower scene in Spearhead from Space and Sergeant Benton at the end of The Time Monster), albeit discreetly shielded by strategically placed props. However, the BBC vetoed the production team's original intention of showing Jack's buttocks. In The Parting of the Ways Jack kissed both Rose and the Doctor good-bye on the lips, the latter being the first such same-sex kiss in the programme's history (not counting a similar kiss between male warriors in "The Ribos Operation," although that kiss was between the lead villain and his right-hand man).
Which makes no sense.  In each case the item in the brackets nulifies the "first" claim without any other information given as to why the previous occasions should be discounted.  Ajmayhew 15:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First or third? 

message: Should the material from the Torchwood intranet be moved to its own section under the Other Appearances? I added one paragraph about it, but Khaosworks removed it -- he rightly pointed out that the website is rather unclear and possibly contradictory. Maybe collating that stuff under one section would allow the casual reader to understand its uncertain canonicity. --Jason Kirk 17:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torchwood Website 

message: It's been a while since I watched the first series, but I seem to recall Jack and Rose drinking champagne on his ship when they first meet in Doctor Who... but in every pub scene in Torchwood, Jack appears to be drinking water. Does anyone know if there's a reason for this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.148.97.69 (talk • contribs) 19:36, February 23, 2007  (UTC)
:I was puzzled by this too — but then I think that he drinks alcohol in at least one episode late in the first series.  (Not sure about that, though.)  Anyway, I don't think it's been explicitly addressed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we know it's water and not vodka or white rum? He has a martini when he thinks he is going to die in the ship explosion doesn't he? --GracieLizzie 11:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he has a martini in The Doctor Dances.  It's only in Torchwood that he seems consistently to drink water (or another clear liquid) when others are drinking beer and the like.  But we really don't know enough about it to say anything in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drinking habits / alcohol? 

message: I think its about time this talk page had an archive since its a bit too long and some of the origional comments are irrellivent to what we know about hime today. What does everyone else think?--Wiggstar69 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: I thought the layout of the appearences looked better in date order, since the episodes fit better in order and make more sence. To be honest it could be put any way but I think putting it in chronological order looks better, I would quite like to change it back (and will) unless someone  gives me a sufficient reason not to.--Wiggstar69 21:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's standard practice for articles about television characters, and the episodes he appears in are covered chronologically in the character history section.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I am aware there are not any good exaples of charicters who have move from program to program without having it in chronological order in their history, please give me a good few exaples to show its 'standard practice' (meaning used in majority of these cases) if you can i'd be happy to keep it the way it is.--Wiggstar69 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not many have "appearances" sections but off the top of my head I'd say: Sarah Jane Smith, Star Trek characters, Buffy/Angel characters ... any series with some intertextuality. It's not a big deal to me... if somebody else disagrees with me, I'll cave. ~ZytheTalk to me! 22:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: My vote: I definitely prefer chronological order by series as it is now. -- LeCourT:C 02:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for being so understanding, I'm going to change it, although if some more people diagree with me then I wont mind changing it back--Wiggstar69 10:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ummm, that's not what I meant, actually. With your most recent edit, Wiggstar, appearances are now just chronological, not chronological by series. I preferred the way Zythe had it. -- LeCourT:C 15:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I got confused--Wiggstar69 08:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not in chronological order? 

message: "Jack becomes the first regular character in the programme's history to appear naked on screen (not counting the Third Doctor's shower scene in Spearhead from Space and Sergeant Benton at the end of The Time Monster)", "the latter being the first such same-sex kiss in the programme's history (not counting a similar kiss between male warriors in "The Ribos Operation," although that kiss is between the lead villain and his right-hand man)."
Why are these instances not counted? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've played down the references because they're not that extraordinary for British television and certainly not unexpected when the producer of the programme is the originator of the racy British version of Queer as Folk. --Tony Sidaway 16:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Not counting..." 

message: I have removed the following recent addition:
:However, Jack's preferred weapon appears to be a Webley Mark IV (See Webley Revolver). However, pictures (on Torchwood's official site http://www.bbc.co.uk/torchwood) showing Jack with his pistol make it difficult to identify whether it is the .38 or .455 variant; but due to Jack's appearance in World War II one may assume it is the .455 variant.
It appears to be largely original research.  --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Webley revolver

message: I beleive a picture of him from series three would better represent what is currently happening to jack(the salute picture would be a good idea.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.240.168 (talk • contribs).
:Jack has not yet appeared in Series 3. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also unnecessary. The current image meets fair use criteria, a replacement might not. Recentism is also not important in defining what is significant to a character. Technically, his 13 episode Torchwood portrayal is what currently most defines the character.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I've readded these, because, as they are sourced and the subjects (i.e. the last three episodes of Series 3) are notable and have articles, they do not fall under WP:CRYSTAL. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 01:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 3/Tenth Doctor 

message: Is Jack a dad?  I vaguely remember him saying something in Torchwood (think it was the first episode) about pregnancy and then how he was "never doing that again."  My memory of Torchwood isn't great so I might be talking rubbish, but he's really old, so he might had kids at some point.  Lol, maybe he was the one who was pregnant, with some alien spawn or something. Paul730 02:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the implication I got was that he never wanted to get pregnant again. Can't blame him, really. ShaleZero 18:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is he a alien then? because normaly male humans dont tend to get pregnant. ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 17:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I just reverted an addition that says he was "apparently pregnant." It didn't quite fit in the middle or the sentence where it was placed, and there were formatting problems, but the main reason is that the remark is similar to his joking about his spaceship as a bar ("See if I come here again" - "The Doctor Dances") and the Valient as a hotel booked online ("Last of the Time Lords").  If someone wants to put it back in somewhere, it should be given some context, I think, and not plopped in the middle or a sentence about his romantic involvements in general. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 21:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Children?

message: I think that the section on Reunion with the Doctor is required otherwise someone wishing to know this information would have to read the entire torchwood section. LizzieHarrison 09:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's part of the later section of his fictional history. If people are "looking" for that specific information at the moment, they'd know it's at the bottom.~ZytheTalk to me! 10:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reunion with the Doctor section

message: This article reads like a big plot summary of Torchwood.  Can someone please add information about the creation of Jack as a character and his impact on pop culture rather than simply reiterate the storyline.  You could even mention his parody in Dead Ringers.  Also, any interviews with John Barrowman or Russel T Davis could be used in a "Writing and acting" section. Thanks.  Paul730 12:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, my next goal is to basically stop it from being an episode-by-episode account, take plot points like the times Jack kills murder and compile them in the "characterisation" section to show what he's like. Turn all the TW1/DW3 stuff into more of a description of his character at this point in the story.  And compact it a hell of a lot. Three or four large paragraphs, maybe.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot

message: I know [or think I know] there used to be this superb account by a 1959-era Torchwood staffmember detailing an amnesiac Jack in a bunker, being tested for assessment in joining Torchwood, but I can't seem to find it, even when visiting the Torchwood main website itself.  Can anyone help? [User: Stripey].
Found it. :) It was 1958, and is the Journal in the Emma-Louise Cowell article on the Torchwood website.  Having dragged out the bits of it I need, I've noticed it contradicts the episodes, leading me to add my piece to the above thread (see up there above) on series vs Everything Else.  Jack cannot have spent more-or-less every year from roundabout 1908 to at least 1958 only ever awake on one day each year, for this contradicts Small Worlds, Captain Jack Harkness, Utopia and The Sound of Drums.  Hmmm... [User: Stripey].
:Who knows. I would LOVE if they somehow tied it into James Marsters' appearance next year, though - maybe it's not Jack at all. If  you had to rectify it with Jack's personal history, this is just a couple years out of many and he may have been lying to the guy. Best not to put it anywhere on the article, it doesn't have a real place.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1959

message: I had just found this: 
"However there is nothing to back up the idea jack is the face of boe, as the face of boe is said to have had offspring. Jack is a male so could not have given birth"
Personally, I think that this is not needed, as someone can have offspring without being the parent that gives birth. MadJaxter 19:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't, he said he was from the Boeshane Peninsula. Peninsula implies he's referring to a specific area/region, rather than a planet. There could easily be a peninsula named that on earth in the future. One other thing, in one of the books, Jack mentions seeing someone dressed as "the Face of Boe." Queer Scout 21:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd have thought so, and that's how it stands at the moment, but apparently not; we must decide whether or not he is. Incidentally, while I personally favour keeping it open, I wouldn't be a pedantic anorak if I didn't point out Jack claimed he's been pregnant in "Everything Changes", although that doesn't prove anything. Daibhid C 22:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if and when they are absolutely confirmed on screen as being the same person, I still don't think they should be merged. There's no question that the Tenth Doctor is the same person as the First Doctor, and those articles aren't being merged. Daibhid C 16:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boe's Offspring 

message: Would it be more correct to say that the Face of Boe is Jack, or the other way around? Despite the fact FOB was a nickname from his youth, the title would have to apply to the future persona of Jack, no? I'd go with Jack is the Face of Boe, as Jack is the character that becomes the Face of Boe. mpbx 05:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't been confirmed. It's been stated that Jack was known as the face of boe from time agent academy. Which may or may not mean he adopted it again upon becoming a giant face in the distant future, or, if he heard Martha and the Doctor discussion the FoB in 'Utopia' he said it as a joke, or it was a strange coincidence. Canon has not officially shown they are the same, RTD even "backpeddled" in the podcast a bit. 24.20.105.177 04:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Phrasing

message: Please change:
First appearance The Empty Child 
Last appearance Ongoing 
to:
First appearance The Empty Child (Doctor Who)</br>Everything Changes (Torchwood)
Last appearance Last of the Time Lords (Doctor Who)</br>Ongoing (Torchwood)
His first and last appearances in both shows should be noted, and despite there being a message there, somebody just doesn't seem to get it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk • contribs) 
:Please sign your posts, it makes it very difficult to associate talk page discussion with edits otherwise.
:There's nothing inaccurate about simply listing his first appearance in all shows of the Doctor Who Universe, and it's much simpler than listing both series separately.--Trystan 15:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First/last appearances 

message: This is going to probably turn into a debate about how they are different characters and all that, but shouldn't his first appearance be The End of the World? The Face of Boe first appeared in that episode and it has been revealed that they are the same person. Thoughts? 86.157.160.234 12:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Just like anakin skywalker's 1st appearance is not star wars ep4. May be revealed as the same person eventually, but they are distinct characters. mattbuck 12:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As it has been confirmed by Russell T Davies that Jack IS the Face of Boe, even if you keep the articles unmerged, wouldn't it be true to put that Jack's first appearance is in the End of the World in Series 1? LuGiADude 15:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, see above. mattbuck 15:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  BUT if a = b, and b = c, then in that case, a = c, correct? No, I'm not stating that MAYBE a =c, a definitely IS c. b being Boe, and c being the first appearance. So if a is captain jack, then his first appearence = c. WHICH IS THE END OF THE WORLD. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. So yes, Anakin Skywalker's first appearance IS in ep4. 172.142.152.254 16:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be civil in your posts. The point is that the Face of Boe has been a distinct character from Captain Jack, and RTD does NOT state that they are one and the same, he states it's a theory. He's the ultimate creative force behind the series, thus his interpretation is the kosher one. Like I said, they are distinct CHARACTERS, even if they are the same being. The first appearance of the character of Jack was in the WW2 ep, and 1st appaearance of character of Boe was EOTW. mattbuck 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Right... but RTD said they WERE in the Podcast for episode 13... :S I'm sorry, but if RTD says so, is that not enough? Seeing as that RTD is Number 1? 172.142.152.254 17:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he did NOT say they were the same. He said it was a THEORY. Combining them would lead to mass confusion. Keep it as it is. mattbuck 17:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He doesn't really say it is a theory - he seems to more suggest jokingly that, if he were a fan, he would rather it be a theory, than definitive. To be precise, he says "I have to say (a few jumbled words), even though I'm having written it, I am of the school that it's a theory. I'm not actually saying it" at which point Julie Gardner cuts him off to state "No, stop. (Davies laughs) No-one believes it. Stop back-pedalling. He is the Face of Boe (Davies laughs again); Captain Jack".Though as I said before. I don't agree the two articles should be merged, as, like you say, they have been completely distinct characters, even if they are the same being. --86.130.30.88 17:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But he does say it's a theory, explicitly, in the part you quoted.  I didn't hear any mention of what he would prefer as a fan.  My interpretation was rather that he was speaking as the creator of the show, meaning he left it deliberately somewhat ambiguous.--Trystan 17:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I said he "jokingly suggests" it. I specifically included that bit, so someone couldn't argue that I didn't include it deliberately. I also included the bits where he laughs while Julie Gardner is talking, as reference to why I felt he considered it jokingly. And I didn't say that he said he was speaking as a fan, but suggests it, as he said "even though" (suggesting it was his intention, as writer, that they be the same) he wrote it, "he is of the school that it's a theory" (with the assumption that by school, he means what's in this article), and would therefore be part of a group (the fans) that believe it is only a theory. Though I guess that bit's up to an individual's own interpretation of what he said, as shown by our own differing views about how he said it, so I won't go into it any further. --86.130.30.88 18:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Who's being "absolutely ludicrous"? --86.130.30.88 18:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First appearance 

message: I'd have to disagree with these edits, which remove discussion of the representation that Jack may be the Face of Boe.  While we certainly shouldn't that take that to be a canonical truth within the show's universe, it's unarguable that the theory is being put forward by the writers, and indeed, the show's writer explicitly states in the podcast he is putting forward that theory.--Trystan 18:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, originally I had a mention of nickname being the Face of Boe (unlinked purposefully) but it was removed. The lead section is regardless, specifically intended to make sense to non-fans of the show. Don't go too deep into the show's mythology in the opening! The opening currently summarises Jack in three relevant paragraphs: a short one to say he's a fictional character. The second explains appearances, dates, etc. The third is a brief summary of Jack's role and character. ~ZytheTalk to me! 20:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Not sure where to put it otherwise, but... did anybody besides me notice that the soundtrack changed to a variant of the "Face of Boe"-theme (which was used in the other 2 episodes featuring the Face of Boe) as Jack told his story of being called the "Face of Boe" --16:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implication that Jack may be the Face of Boe 

message: Hello. I have read through the GA criteria and examined this article closely. I have marked it as a "pass" because of the outstanding quality and referencing, whilst also it lacks no real problems in the text. Everything seems verified and accurate enough. If you believe this decision is wrong please contact me. Francisco Tevez 17:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Pass

message: Point raised on the FAC discussion: Oppose: :Image:Cardiff-Bay-01.jpg does not contribute to the article in any significant way. The caption on the image on the article says "Jack leaving the Doctor's company in Doctor Who series three" Why is this significant? It's not mentioned in the article at all, except on the caption. Nothing about the image seems significant enough to warrant inclusion of this fair use image. It depicts the character, nothing more. We already have another image for depiction purposes. This is just decoration. --Durin 19:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Cardiff-Bay-01.jpg]] 

message: May be useful again some day, Eve Myles discusses the romantic potential between Jack and Gwen. (()) ~ZytheTalk to me! 17:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphan reference 

message: Continuing discussiong here, since GimmeBot has archived the FAC page and the article wasn't promoted. So, my last comment was:
*Russell T Davies referred to a scene in "Last of the Time Lords" as promoting a theory that Jack's future may involve him become or age into another recurring character in the series -- This is very awkward sounding.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right. It's very hard to get it right, because at one point you want to offer a slight in-universe explanation so that it makes sense (What's the Face of Boe? How does he become that?) and at the same time you need to ground the whole thing in the OOU context of the producer's comments.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, it's a bit much for a lead and it's a tiny bit short of definitely confirmed. It doesn't belong in the lead and doesn't come into the Appearances (character "history" sections being discouraged) either.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's talk FAC 

message: Is there a possibility that the name of this character is a reference to Robert A. Heinlein's character Captain Harkness from Farmer in the Sky? --Khokkanen 04:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that at all notable? mattbuck 11:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could go under character creation if any critic or Davies or Barrowman comments upon it.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heinlein's Captain Harkness 

message: Just trying to figure out why on 23 september Zythe, you reverted the parts i added on What actually happened to Jack, to make him immortal, and the section on Death's of Jack.  I felt both added to information about the character.  I had searched high and low to find out why he was immortal, but what was in the wiki was ambigious at best. "Jack was made immortal by the actions of rose" Isn't specific enough.  The fact that he is Time trapped, permanently anchored in time is infact huge. Also goes to knocking out the Jack equals the Face of Bode Arguments, because it helps it (he could have been transported to the begining of time at some point) and hinders it (Because he was time stuck, he can't die, so giving away the energe of the infinate time vortex would be meaningless)
As for the Deaths, That i believe was rather interesting in itself. I purposefully didn't make bullet points because that would be too long and gruling, but it's interesting to be reading about "how immortal " he is, then to actually see the deaths that he's 'survived.'
Since the revert was given without explanation, I wanted to a little explanation than to keep adding it, and having it reverted over and over in fustration.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.152.184 (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that information had been skimmed so the emphasis was on real-world information. Essentially, plot points don't matter as much. It would be better to discuss how to integrate it.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a link at the bottom of the page to Jack's article at the Doctor Who Wiki.  That website is written more for fans than Wikipedia is, so the emphasis is on plot and "in-universe" perspective (at least as far as I know from using other wikis).  If you like, you could detail Jack's immortality and deaths there.  As Zythe already said, Wikipedia is (or should be) more about real world context, as it's an encyclopedia and not a fan site.  Paul730 18:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rose's Actions and Jacks Deaths 

message: Aren't there a number of action figures of Jack?  With a source, these could be mentioned in "Critical reception and impact", or even be split off into a "Popular culture" section, along with the Dead Ringers parody.  Any thoughts? Paul730 01:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Products

message: Last time I looked, this page was full of information that happened to Jack Harkness in Doctor Who and Torchwood...and now I find it's only full of behind-the-scenes information and everything that's happened to Jack within the Whoniverse seems to be gone!  Can we please get all the fictional information back in? – Alan-WK 18:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was cleaned up so it could become a featured article candidate.  Although it was not promoted at the time, it is still much better quality than it was beforehand.  Jack's story in the shows has not been removed, but summarised in accordance to Wikipedia policy.  Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be plot summaries; in-universe detail is only tolerated to provide context for the encyclopedic information which this article now contains.  If you really want to access the old page, you can find it somewhere in the article history.  You could also check out the TARDIS Index File wiki linked at the foot of the page for more in-universe info, but Wikipedia is not the place for this.  Paul730 18:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the new article focuses on nothing but Jacks' sexuality and reactions thereto.  Also the article does seem to be less about Jack and more about what real people say about Jack these comments are almost all about Jacks' sexuality.  All in all the article seems to be very lopsided twoard his sexuality and not about the character at all.--Murphoid 23:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia article, and should focus on how the character was created and developed, and why the character is notable in pop culture.  If Jack is notable for his sexuality, then the article has to reflect that.  This is not biography for fans to read about their favourite character's life and quirks.  If you have reliable sources discussing other aspects of Jack's character besides his sexuality, feel free to add that information.  Paul730 23:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's happened to this page?