Talk:List of Torchwood creatures and aliens

message: Why is the Doctor Who villain box used? Torchwood is a series in it's own right, shouldn't it have an infobox? Or at least the infobox should be changed to "Whoniverse" instead of "Doctor Who"... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 17:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It did have "Whoniverse" at one point. Don't know why it was changed back though... anyway, changed back again to "Whoniverse race". ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Which has since been reverted. Oh well... ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 12:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Torchwood should have its own infoboxes separate from the Doctor Who ones... — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget I said that :) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes 

message: Why don't we have a cannibal infobox? It seems slightly messy without one. Or else they should go into the Minor Characters list, seeing as they aren't technically monsters or aliens. Clockwork Apricot 14:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on this: On the Doctor Who m&a list, it is specified that the list "includes some beings which are not extraterrestrial, but are nonetheless non-human", andI don't see why the Torchwood m&a list should be any different. ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We discussed this on the minor characters talk page and it was said they should go here because humans can be monsterous too. --GracieLizzie 17:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannibal Infobox

message: Should it really be included on this page? It just kind of confuses everything. I mean, it's non-canon - we don't include any the Doctor Who books' stuff on those lists.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The books aren't non-canon for a start. And it's a lot easier to start a full Torchwood list than it is for Doctor Who pages. The Doctor Who pages are incredibly inconsistent with their inclusions and which monsters have information. Everything from published Torchwood work should be included i.e. nothing from the website which is temperamental about when it has stuff deleted, but other than that, everything should be included. Clockwork Apricot (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book stuff 

message: :Image:TorchwoodFairy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:TorchwoodFairy.jpg

message: :*WP:NFCC is a permissive policy with limitations; it is not a restrictive policy with permissions. Accordingly it should be interpreted to fulfill its permissive purpose rather than its limiting aspect. Thus if doubt arises as to the interpretation of policy, that doubt should be resolved in favour of the permissive purpose. This is classical policy analysis, although I'm no longer employed in that capacity.
*WP:NFCC#3a Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.
:In this case, images are ONLY used when words are insufficient to convey the appearance of the character. Anyone who thinks different is invited to write such a description, email it to me, and I will pass it on to an artist friend of mine, who has never watched Torchwood and the I will scan and post his interpretation here so that editors can assess how successful those words have been. Multiple items- each character has only one image, and only needs one, so that point does not arise. It's not as if, as I have pointed out, that the article is strewn with images,and, indeed, I have removed one that could not reasonably satisfy this criterion.
*WP:NFCC#8 Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function
:Per my argument above, words are insufficient to describe these characters. Would its omission be detrimental to the reader's understanding? In my view,, again, that any attempt to describe these characters in words would be inaccurate and therefore misleading.
*Use of non-free images in lists.
:I have been referred to previous discussions on this point. All the examples given in those discussions are of lists of television programme episodes. The distinction to be drawn is that it is impossible to encapsulate a 30- 50-minute episode in one image; and, of course, in these lists, almost all the episodes had images. That is not the case here. In the examples I have seen of "Lists of Character" articles, those articles were liberally strewn with images, making an arguable case for breach of "minimal use", although personally I believe that one image per character is not excessive. 
*Use of provocative edit summaries threatening blocking is unhelpful while the application of policy to a particular case is under discussion; it might be thought to be WP:UNCIVIL. It's certainly not WP:AGF --Rodhullandemu 13:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Foundation level policy is to allow fair-use images within certain limitations. Those limitations in relation to this article have been addressed. You have not countered them beyond citing a discussion which addressed different issues. This is unacceptable. Either deal in detail with this article or don't. It makes little difference to me. --Rodhullandemu 22:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The foundation's policy is that the projects must have policy with at least a particular level of strictness. Enwp's policy is conformant (and, in some regards, exceeds the foundation's minimums). Betacommand's edit warring and aggressive behavior is unjustified and unacceptable regardless of how correct he is, but it does appear that the standing policy and practice supports his position with respect to List of articles. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "standing policy" is not a policy; it is a consensus. Practice likewise. Although policies are intended to be broad statements of principle, applied with some measure of common sense, this is not happening because we are being given little indication of where the boundaries lie. As I've seen time and time again, this is unhelpful because it leads to exactly this sort of situation. But, again, it's a permissive, not a restrictive policy, and should be construed with that intent in mind, i.e. purposively and enabling rather than disabling. If previous discussions have missed that, it's not my fault. --Rodhullandemu 02:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy

message: Should we mention that behind-the-scenes, the blowfish alien is called "Hootie", after Hootie and the Blowfish? Daibhid C (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Blowfish

message: This article has been identified as containing an excessive quantity of non-free content. Per the Foundation's requirement to keep non-free media use minimal, and per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #3, the non-free images on this article have been removed. Please note: 
*The presence of a fair use rationale for this article on an image description page does not make it acceptable for a given use. 
*Blanket restoration of the non-free images that have been removed can and most likely will be reverted, with subsequent reporting action possible. 
*If some restoration is desired, careful consideration of exactly what non-free media to use must be made, paying special attention to WP:NFCC #1 and #8. In most cases non-free media needs to be tied directly to the prose of the article, most preferably with inline citations tying the discussion to secondary sources regarding the image per Wikipedia:Verifiability. 
If this is a list type article, please read the WP:NFLISTS guideline. If you wish to dispute this removal, it may be helpful to read WP:OVERUSE, as it answers a number of typical questions and responses to removals such as this. If after reading these, you still feel there is grounds for restoration of most or all of the media that have been removed, please post to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.  ΔT The only constant 01:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, and reverted per the guideline page recommendation to limit use to major characters, which this apparently satisfies. The above templated threat, by the way, is an assertion of personal opinion and not Wikipedia rules.  - Wikidemon (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of non-free images on this article