Talk:To the Last Man (Torchwood)

message: 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)
thread_title: Premature plot summaries

message: 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)
thread_title: Torchwood website

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Executions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Historical errors 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: *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 / system, so as not to disrupt the prose.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anoracky?  — Edokter • Talk •  23:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sort of thing an anorack would do. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, anorak. I wonder why I couldn't find the word.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Main image?