Talk:Torchwood: Miracle Day

Terrible link at the top of a mediocre article

Hey, just wanted to mention that the link to "immortality" near the top of this entry is very silly and really serves no purpose. It just empathizes how stupid Wikipedia can come across at times. Ban people under the age of eighteen from editing Wikipedia and this sort of embarrassing crap might not happen so often. FYI. 64.188.20.17 (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions

1) Isn't this actually a licensed american show?

2) isn't it OR to say it's season 4 of the british show? especially in light of the producers comments that it is a reboot? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

They talk in interviews about their term reboot is just a way of saying "a fresh start". Original press releases touted it as a series 4, anyway, a few weeks back. It's OR to assume it's a spin-off, if that's what you're supposing.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is season four of the British show and the (surviving) characters from the earlier seasons are all in it. But its now a joint production and it will introduce a lot of american characters too, I think I heard Russell T Davis or John Barrowman say in an interview "its the same show just moving countries" (but theres still quite a bit of it set in wales i think) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.47.148 (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Answers

1. THIS IS NOT A REBOOT of the show as quoted on main page. (american media slander)The demeanor of the show is to sway viewers to watch shows in the same time slot. 2. IT should not matter the country of which it came. In script and on screen several references to past seasons and fellow Torchwood members. Therefore season 4 is appropriate. "Just cause i sold you a used house does not mean it is new to everyone else"

3. Who cares about american licensing if you can afford starz you probably get BBCAmerica Where in your tv guide unquote has been playing Torchwood for years and of coarse Doctor Who 4. My guess why it moved off BBCA and to a different BBC channel was to broaden the american audience using Starz and not just the few doctor who relevant die hard fans... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynsiaproject11 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

^^This entire rant makes no goddamn sense. Could the author re-write it in common English? This is the English language Wikipedia, after all. I don't think it is advisable for someone who clearly speaks English as a *second* language to edit wikipedia entries at all, even on the talk page. It's just plain confusing -- you clearly can't state you opinions in any comprehensible manner. We can't move this conversation forward while you are speaking gibberish-- I can't even tell what you WANT, for crying out loud. 64.188.20.17 (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Consistency in the naming of the seasons

There is a lack of consistency in the naming of the seasons. Season 3 is named Children of Earth, while Season 4 is names Torchwood: The New World. It would make more sense to have Torchwood: Children of Earth and Torchwood: The New World, for instance (or the opposite). Hektor (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The show is actually called Torchwood: The New World by RS so that is where it remains. We don't alter the names of articles (or at least should not) to fit our own internal naming schemes. I have no idea where 'children of men' should be or what it's name in RS is. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Children of Men? :D - In this case I believe both names are correct (as in the show has been referred to as both TW:CoE and just simply CoE, same for The New World!). To be in keeping with the Children of Earth article, it might be an idea to move this article to The New World and place a link to New World (disambiguation) (the current redirect for The New World) at the top of the page. Just a thought! Cannonbolt2 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This is back to front, Reliable Sources call it 'Torchwood: The New World', that is the proper title so that is what the article should be called. To move it to the 'The New World' to fit some editors OCD need for things to line up is perverse. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't attack another editor for making a suggestion. Hektor has a valid point, as do you. Please try and be more civil when discussing changes to articles. It's the only way things can be sorted ASAP with out any needless drama. Cannonbolt2 (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As for the actual topic, either moving this to The New World or moving Children of Earth to Torchwood: Children of Earth would be acceptable in my opinion. (And before you ask for RS Cameron, this is only a talk page. We're discussing potential changes. No changes are being made yet, or even at all atm. So chill!) Cannonbolt2 (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes and I am telling you the Reliable sources indicate that it is called "Torchwood: The New World", a move would therefore represent original research and also would not be accurate. The point I am making is that the naming convention of the Doctor Who project carries no weight against policy. We don't move articles because it is 'neater' for special interest groups like wikiprojects, if reliable sources say the show was called "Captain Jack's magic ass" that's where the article should be. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I imagine this is going to be a season page (a la Doctor Who (series 4)), as Epsenson et. al will probably be writing named episodes. So it's less of a serial than CoE and more of a proper miniseries/series.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And just to confirm, what I said above is definitely the case [1].~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Cast

The new cast section seems to me borderline Copyvio. The question is to know which side of the border. Hektor (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly written very much like a fansite. anyone want to copyedit it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, the ratio between original text and material directly cut and paste from STARZ press releases is too low. Hektor (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had go. Anyone else want to rewrite a couple of sentences? Edgepedia (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's written that way because the only source I had to draw from was the bloody press release, which naturally is a bit POV. More sources, more balance.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Season or series?

Most sources are using "season" to describe "the new season", and it is primarily US-produced. However, the earlier "seasons" were of course UK "series". So, for consistency, I think editors should decide upon a consistent naming practice to use in, for example, the infobox and the lead etc. We could probably even attach a small note somewhere about the UK-US phrasing, perhaps in a cute little box on the side as it's not part of the article's sourced commentary.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely we refer editors to [Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Manual of style], which specifies British English. The earlier seasons are written in BR so, for consistency, this one should be. Edgepedia (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be written according to reliable sources, if the majority call it a season, then it's a season - the views of the Doctor Who knitting circle don't override verification and RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Series and season are recognised differences between US English and British English. If the source was in French you wouldn't be calling it a 'Série' would you? Edgepedia (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:ENGVAR applies here, If it's [the article] written primarily in British English it should be series, since that is how they do it over there. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 23:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it written in British english to start with? it's a co-production filmed in the US and with the majority of the sources being American. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is my point exactly. It's not straightforwardly a British production, at all. In fact, it's mostly American money and produced as part of the American TV season, with a US audience in mind, etc. But it's also season that follows a show that previous has had, definitively, three 'series'. It's tricky.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's currently in British English. It's a British-US co-production, so there's no strong tie to either country. I see no reason to change. Edgepedia (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Contradicting Statement

After reading the first part of this article, there seem to be contradicting statements given by the 2 executive producers. One says it's not a reboot while the other says it is a reboot.

In my understanding, a reboot would mean to start the whole Torchwood thing all over again with new casts, new plots, discarding any previous loops done in the past episodes. But in the Casts section of this article, it says they are keeping the 2 main character and 1 recurring character (I'll miss Tosh). That would mean there'd a continuity in the next series.

Could the word "reboot" be just another UK/US lexicon? As such with "season" and "series?" Or is it just a mis-wording on the part of the execs? --Terran —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.199.223 (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It does look like it's contradictory. However, speculating about the meaning here would be orginal research, and not neccessary. The sources we have and what they have said are presented to the reader. Edgepedia (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, one of the said sources is now a dead link. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It comes down to Julie Gardner not knowing what a reboot is.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In a way it's more a relaunch than a reboot. They've scrapped everything and are starting again (you know, like a Spin-off). We'll see just how well that works once the viewing figures start coming in. --Clarrisani (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Jane Espenson

She is writing four episodes instead of three. She confirmed this on her twitter. http://twitter.com/#!/JaneEspenson/status/10888886146301952 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPatrickSpiller (talk • contribs) 08:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Individual episode articles?

Do we really need to create individual episode articles for Miracle Day? This season is just one story but told over 10 episodes. Children of Earth was the same but told over 5 episodes and that only has one article. --TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 17:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we'll have to wait and see how Miracle Day will be structured. It could be a 10-episode serial like Children of Earth, or it coudl be a series of individual episodes supporting the over plot arc. Etron81 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Espenson suggests that it's a bona fide American-style writer-per-named-episode deal. If it's less a serial and more ten-episodes-with-an-arc-to-them then episodes might demand individual attention. For example, we might want a writing section to discuss how Doris Egan approached her episode, the fact that filming happened in such and such a place might earn a second, and it might get wildly different reviews to other episodes of the series too. As it is, this article is shaping up to be a very good season page (a la The Wire (season 1)).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of British English...

Has there been any word on whether John Barrowman will still be required to pronounce certain things "Britishly" in keeping with his prior character? I was given to believe that this was done for understandability to a British audience in the pronunciation of certain words. I refer to assorted random words that were distinctly pronounced in a non-American way, e.g. "estrogen" (east-ro-gen, rather than ehst-ro-gen). Since the target audience has been redefined as primarily US, this should no longer be necessary in any way, and would not have the BBC pushing for it (and being raised largely in Illinois and having an adopted midwestern-urban accent, I have a hard time imagining Barrowman pronounces things that way on his own). However at the same time, the character has done it in the past. This not having happened yet doesn't indicate anything, as there simply may not have been any words deemed necessary to pronounce oddly (not saying the British pronunciation is odd, but that someone with an otherwise American accent pronouncing random words that way is odd). Or has the new production even given this any thought, or has Barrowman himself? 72.247.151.10 (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

John Barrowman is in fact Scottish and lived here until he was eight. Many people in this situation hold to specific pronunciations of words in the way they learned them. He can still lapse into decent Glaswegian if he chooses. A friend of mine who emigrated to Florida once used a common word on the phone, (auger), but since he had never used it before, in Scotland, he actually pronounced it in USAican, probably the way eh learned it, standing out from the rest of his thick Paisley accent. (He has been in USA less than a decade.)81.171.235.115 (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Lance T.

I saw him on a British chat show a couple of years ago where he was joined by his sister. He revealed that he quickly picked up an American accent so as not to stand out from everyona else and uses it in everyday life. However he then admitted that he drops back into his Scottish accent when talking to family and amazed everyone when he did so while talking with his sister.Williamgeorgefraser 17:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs)

Episode titles

Can't help but noticing that, though I can't speak for the American broadcast, in the UK the episode title "The New World" was not used at all. And neither is it seen on BBC iplayer. So, er, have the episode titles been scrapped, and if so what does that mean for the article/s? U-Mos (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The titles, including "The New World", are definitely being used in the US. Given Starz is the point of first broadcast, and the show is principally an American production, we've got no issue with including them. --Drmargi (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The episode titles were not shown on screen in the UK for episodes 1 & 2; episode 3 goes out at 21:00 tonight (20:00 UTC). They have not been printed in the Radio Times for episodes 1-3, these episodes been shown as "Torchwood: Miracle Day New series. 1/10 Series four.", "Torchwood: Miracle Day 2/10 Series four." and "Torchwood: Miracle Day 3/10 Series four.", but in the Radio Times for 30 July-5 August 2011, episode 4 (4 August 2011) has been titled: it is billed as "Torchwood: Miracle Day 4/10 Series 4. Escape to LA.". All bolding and italicisation per the RT entries. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

British versus American English, and related issues

I've reverted to the British-led wording, and am suggesting that we resolve this on the talk page first rather than repeatedly reverting. The only discussion with regard to this was in September 2010, and there was no conclusion there to differ from the standards of the hundreds (thousands?) of other DW-related articles. Simply put, while there may be a strong American involvement in the fourth series, it is not similar to a Three's Company/Man About the House scenario. Moreover, structuring this article differently from the other DW-related articles doesn't even make sense. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

That's too easy by half. If this were just a British production shooting scenes in LA, that would be one thing. But it's not, and comments from both Davies and Espenson make that clear. This is a strongly American production, with American funding. This season marks a significant change in the origins and production of the series -- even the writing model is American. We know a lot more about the production now than we did in September 2010, and the changes made reflect this. These recent edits, which have been supported by three editors, reflect newer and fuller understanding of the nature of the production. Moreover, the credits support the treatment of the show as strongly American. We need to leave nationalistic issues aside and accurately present the production as it is. Drmargi (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Torchwood was and always will be a British television - that's its strongest national tie. It just happens this iteration has US dollars and production helping it. To stay consistent with all other articles on Torchwood, it should stay Brit spelling and dates. --MASEM (t) 06:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've reverted Drmargi for now. If this (or some other) discussion results in a consensus to differ from the model used for every other DW-related article, then such a change can be implemented. However, in the absence of such a consensus, BRD would require remaining with the original model. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Note also that we need to reflect the changes in the production model, but we also need to keep this in the context and style of the overall series. The wording as it now stands reflects the wording of the main article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Russell T Davis is quoted himself as saying it isn't a new version or a reboot. This is a British TV show that is producing a new series based in America with joint American funding. A similar example to this is Hustle which had a US based series with a similar funding model. It shouldn't be listed in anything other than British English (or English as we call it over this side of the pond ;) ) Sue De Nimes (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This should be treated as the highly-Americanized fourth series of a British programme, and refer consistently to "past series" as opposed to "past seasons". Is there a British English announcement template or something? Yes, Miracle Day is rather American, but Torchwood on the whole is still British. It's a toughie, but consistency probably tips the scales.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Caucasian

I've replaced the term "caucasian" with the more prosaic word "white", which is what it means. The term "caucasian", common in America, is virtually unknown elsewhere, and for good reason. The old hypothesis that white people came from the Caucasus mountains of Russia is long dead. The word is "white". --TS 01:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm pretty sure the term "Caucasian" is used widely, it's used in the United States and the United Kingdom at least, and is the correct technical term (you see it on any documentation that states ethnicity) 76.69.9.100 (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The term "caucasian" does not appear to be commonly used in the UK. The police and government use different systems to categorise ethnicity;

(From Wikipedia Entry) The police services of the UK began to classify arrests in racial groups in 1975, but later replaced the race code with an Identity Code (IC) system.[12]

IC1 White person IC2 Mediterranean person IC3 African/Caribbean person IC4 Indian, Nepalese, Pakistani, Maldivian, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi, or any other (South) Asian person IC5 Chinese, Japanese, or South-East Asian person IC6 Arabic, Egyptian or Maghreb person IC0 Origin unknown

The government uses a different system, which revolves around white, black, etc., accompanied by common racial subgroups. Caucasian and Negroid are never used.

81.171.235.115 (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Lance T.

I must agree with the previous poster. The term "Caucasian" is rarely used in the UK these days as it is no longer hasa real meaning. Firstly it is anatomical rather than about the colour of one's skin. "Negroid" immediately implies a jutting forehead and a wide flat nose which in these days of racial intermixing means that many dark-skinned people no longer have these traits and are therefore much closer to the "Caucasian" model than the "Negroid". Even within the "Caucasian" model it is relatively easy in the case of people aged 60 and over to differentiate between Scots, Welsh, French, Germans, Poles, etc. Recent intermixing of these races is quickly eliminating the anatomical differences between them.Williamgeorgefraser 17:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs)

It's just the term used in casting calls, normally. But editors can substitute whichever term would be most accurate (to both the casting call and to the most universally correct terminology).Zythe (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in Starz Press Release

The Starz press release writes that Jack came back because of "his unstated love for Gwen Cooper", which is contradictory to what we are told in the original/UK series radio play in which Jack returned to Earth to close the Cardiff rift in "The House of the Dead". This contradiction should be pointed out in the main article. --Clarrisani (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, but the press release is accurate insofar as it's independent of the radio plays and other such spinoffs. DonQuixote (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

However it is still an inaccurate representation of the show, and is not supported in the show itself. --Clarrisani (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it not? "Unstated love" is unstated. But was stated, patently, in 2x01 at least. Also it doesn't matter. ALSO, what happens in spin-off media does not impact a write-up of a show: it is self-contained. For example, we don't write in the write-up of Halloween H20 that Michael Myers lives - we write that Laurie kills him, because that's what the film depicts, though it is later retconned.

Also, Jack did the House of the Dead thing before the final scene of Children of Earth. He came back to Earth in Miracle Day to protect Gwen from the CIA after the 'Torchwood' emails. Zythe (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how the "unstated love" is relevant to the wiki article. It seems that it has been written to try and attract the Gwen/Jack shippers, even though the possibility if such a relationship ended in the second season. Why not simply say that Jack returned to protect Gwen rather than using the unjustified ship comment. --58.164.120.143 (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Not Part of the Whoniverse

As a whole Miricale Day does not appear to be part of the Whoniverse. There is no mention of the Doctor, UNIT (who would have authority in this situation), and the events conflict with the events of the sixth season of NuWho. --58.164.120.143 (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It is explicitly made to be part of it. The Doctor is mentioned on numerous occasions, and the Silurians and Racnoss are named checked in the final episodes Etron81 (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Torchwood might mention Doctor Who, but Doctor Who doesn't mention Torchwood in Season Six. Season Six contradicts Miracle Day. Torchwood: MD is not part of the Whoniverse. --Clarrisani (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your observation. However, unless a reliable source replicates your observation of a supposed contradiction, it's non-notable insofar as Wikipedia is concerned. DonQuixote (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Charlie Jane Anders at io9 does mention the problems with continuity and the article already mentions this in the "critical reception" section but there is no source that explicitly states that MD is not part of the Doctor Who universe, so we need to wait until some source appears before we can include such information in the article. Remember, there is no reason to assume that continuity is somehow restored with later episodes. Regards SoWhy 14:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is a reference to UNIT in the first episode. It was very quick and part of a broader discussion at the CIA of the mystery of Torchwood. I will watch the epi again to try and find the specific point and which character spoke it. I would also add that while there have been no specific Whoverse references other than to UNIT in the first two episodes I've watched, there is a clear reference to the date of the creation of Torchwood that is consistent with the Doctor Who episode Tooth and Claw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someoneinwa (talk • contribs) 23:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't be so fannish. It is probably "in the universe", even if it's mired by logistical problems. The fact is there isn't a cogent fictional world we can refer to; there is a hypothetical timeline to which fans ascribe fictional events in a number of related science fiction stories, but in all Doctor Who media, each story quite casually establishes its own continuity as is most relevant. Dates, for example, frequently change to reflect the year of broadcast, ignoring earlier timeshifts (e.g., the one year gap in 2005 is inconsistently adhered to from the 2007 series onwards and frequently ignored by Torchwood). No storyteller is letting themselves be restricted out of kindness to the Asperger's contingent of the audience. And as SoWhy points out, there is the Charlie Jane Anders source, which addresses continuity problems (especially in relation to Doctor Who) as an element of fan criticism. It's sourced, it's notable, and if the Reception section was more filled out, it would be properly weighted (i.e. there's enough of it). As it is, the main problem with the Reception section is it needs to address the series' criticisms much more penetratively, as there were a lot of them, and even positive reviews were on the backfoot, defending the series as a guilty pleasure.Zythe (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If Torchwood did follow the Doctor Who continuity closely and had a straight, un-muddled timeline, that would be the first indication that it was not part of the Whoniverse. 108.52.73.97 (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Who continuity

In the reception article, it seems there is some complaints about the 'mircale day' taking place at the same time as Doctor Who Series 6 in 2011. However, shouldn't this be series 5, which although aired in 2010, took place in 2011. Because the first episodes of series 1 back in 2005 took place in 2005, but The Doctor and Rose has been missing a whole year, as evidenced at the start of Aliens of London - so consequently this was in 2006. And series 2 takes place in 2007, series 3 takes place in 2008 etc. etc. Also, The Time Traveller's Almanac double-prooves this --94.8.52.112 (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not that OR is to be encouraged, but didn't Moffat restore the series to the year of broadcast in Series 5, down to an airdate/in-story event in "The Big Bang"?Zythe (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Amy begins traveling with the Doctor in 2010, and the Doctor's "death" occurs in 2011. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Torchwood: Miracle Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111008232403/http://www.starz.com/originals/Torchwood/Downloads to http://www.starz.com/originals/Torchwood/Downloads
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100814124551/http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com:80/2010/08/torchwood-gets-title-the-new-world.html to http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/08/torchwood-gets-title-the-new-world.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Filming Torchwood's fourth series in 2011 in Hollywood ?

Filming Torchwood's fourth series in 2011 saw Eve Myles relocate with her family to America's Hollywood Hills, living "literally underneath the Hollywood sign".

"Eve Myles: From Torchwood to Hollywood". WalesOnline. 2010-11-28.

Eve Myles has described California as the "land of dreams", and her experience filming the fourth series of Torchwood in Hollywood as the best year of her life, adding that she would love to spend more time there as an actress if possible.

Duralde, Alfonso (9 July 2011). "On the Set of Torchwood: Miracle Day with Eve Myles, Kai Owen and Bill Pullman". After Elton. Archived from the original on 13 October 2012. Retrieved 10 July 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

69.181.23.220 (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)