Talk:Criticism of Torchwood

	Doctor Who portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by the Torchwood task force.

Blog source[edit]

Is this an official blog as indicated by BBC or is this a fan run blog? [1]. If its the latter it needs to be removed as it fails WP:V and if its something sanctioned and created by the BBC some evidence of that needs to be given.--Crossmr (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fan run. Fairly reliable but yes it fails WP:V sadly. --GracieLizzie (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd series[edit]

Criticism here is only listed from the (really rather poor) 1st series. The show has improved through its second series so it may be worth updating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaffro (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 123% - can someone with enough spare time rectify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.35.191 (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are people in the world who preferred series 2? Wonders never cease... U-Mos (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worthwhile as a separate article[edit]

Why is this worthwhile as a separate article? Is criticism of this show really such a pressing matter that we need an entire article devoted to it? Alastairward (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, this is bollocks isn't it? Every tv programme recieves criticism, this page seems to be mainly a Guardian jounrnalist who doesn't 'get' the show. Besides, Wikipedia criticism articles are used when something promotes violence or is in poor taste or something, not when a tv show uses low budget props. This article needs deleting unless there is some real criticism to be added.--EchetusXe (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open a dictionary and see what "Criticism" means as 1st meaning[edit]

e.g. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criticism

the act of criticizing usually unfavorably

i.e. stop moving the title. Reception of Torchwood is less biased.

--Leladax (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, the inability of some to even see this point is making it obvious we're talking about biased haters of the show trolling the page. Please someone with privileges start the bans. --Leladax (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your move was contested (by me). Therefor, you need consensus to move the article, and should not move the article again without consensus. Since the article does focus on some of the negative criticisms, "Criticism of Torchwood" is appropriate. General reviews are handle on Torchwood itself. — Edokter • Talk • 14:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. You're legitimizing the burying of a series. --Leladax (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither really makes a difference, while the term "criticism" is perfectly accurate - which I don't feel in the context of an encyclopedia presumes negativity - "reception" is a fair word too.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Title Should Really Use a More Neutral Word Than Criticism[edit]

Really, 'criticism' is understood in a negative context by the average reader and thus the word in use for the article is inappropriate and doesn't fit Wiki's guidelines of being free of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]