Talk:Class (2016 TV series): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject BBC}}, {{WikiProject Doctor Who}}. Tag: |
|||
| (36 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talkheader}} |
{{Talkheader}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
||
{{WikiProject BBC | |
{{WikiProject BBC |importance=low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Doctor Who |
{{WikiProject Doctor Who |importance=mid }} |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
== |
== Lede == |
||
Why do we need the phrase "BBC Three controller Damian Kavanagh confirmed" in the lede? That seems like unnecessary detail for a lede. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 14:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
https://twitter.com/Patrick_Ness/status/716964438566428673 |
|||
:Because in [[Special:Permalink/799550666|this version]], it states the following: "{{tq|However, it scored poor viewership figures for its broadcast on BBC One and was cancelled.}}" This indicates that the series was cancelled due to the poor viewership figures, for which there is no source to back this statement up. -- '''[[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#1632E0;text-shadow:1px 1px 8px #324A6E;">Alex</span>]]'''''[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<sup><span style="color:#1632E0">TW</span></sup>]]'' |
|||
::OK, what about: "However, it scored poor viewership figures for its broadcast on BBC One. It was subsequently cancelled." ?? [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 16:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Poor sentence structure on the latter. "It was subsequently cancelled"? When? Who said so? -- '''[[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#1632E0;text-shadow:1px 1px 8px #324A6E;">Alex</span>]]'''''[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<sup><span style="color:#1632E0">TW</span></sup>]]'' 11:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::It's the lede: it's a summary. What matters for the lede is that is was cancelled. Who said so is not a detail you need there: it's given in the main text later on. One could have something about when but it doesn't seem that important. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 15:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::"It was subsequently cancelled" is not a summary, it's a stunted sentence that is an attempt to force the guidelines to extremes by providing only the smallest of detail. -- '''[[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#1632E0;text-shadow:1px 1px 8px #324A6E;">Alex</span>]]'''''[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<sup><span style="color:#1632E0">TW</span></sup>]]'' 11:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I really don't see where you're coming from with that last comment. Who confirmed the news is a minor point and not what's needed in the lede. I had a look through [[:Category:2016 British television programme endings]] and couldn't see any other article lede that named who said a series had been cancelled. I can't see anything wrong with short sentences myself, but if you don't like the construction, I'm not bothered about the exact phrasing. It's just weird to suddenly have so much detail. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 09:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==Ratings== |
|||
Patrick Ness himself... ^^ Ed Bazalgette is directing "our first block" - not the entire series. I have asked Ness to explain what he means by this. If Bazalgette is only doing "the first block" (potentially 1 or 2 episodes), then that means there will be different directors for the different episodes - so this needs to be added to the article, possibly with a table showing the director, produce and writer (as with the other articles for the main series) etc. etc. |
|||
fuller version of them here if anyone wants to convert this into a table in the article: |
|||
I may be completely wrong and Bazalgette may be doing the whole thing, but I found it necessary to add this. We'll see what his reply is. :) |
|||
https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/class-season-one-ratings/ <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:ZarhanFastfire|ZarhanFastfire]] ([[User talk:ZarhanFastfire#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ZarhanFastfire|contribs]]) </small> |
|||
[[User:Badgerdog2|Badgerdog2]] ([[User talk:Badgerdog2|talk]]) 14:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:That's for BBC America, not BBC Three. -- '''[[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#1632E0;text-shadow:1px 1px 8px #324A6E;">Alex</span>]]'''''[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<sup><span style="color:#1632E0">TW</span></sup>]]'' 04:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:Bazalgette is not directing the entire series. Philippa Langdale and Wayne Yip show they are directing episodes on their CVs. Casting director Andy Pryor's [http://www.andypryor.co.uk/ website] also shows Langdale as a ''Class'' director. [[Special:Contributions/50.37.24.81|50.37.24.81]] ([[User talk:50.37.24.81|talk]]) 02:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Noted. Perhaps next time, you could make these edits without making a mess of the article? [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 02:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Perhaps you could read the citations of your fellow editors rather than reverting edits out of hand. [[Special:Contributions/50.37.24.81|50.37.24.81]] ([[User talk:50.37.24.81|talk]]) 02:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Of course. That makes it alright to [[Special:Permalink/725815043#Episodes|make the article a complete shambles]], with "TBA", {{TableTBA}}, "TBA"{{TableTBA}}, redlinks, one-line paragraphs. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 02:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Can we please get better sources than [[Twitter]]? Or in addition to [[Twitter]]? Like, maybe, secondary sources, you know like newspaper articles and online magazines? [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Another old post, dealt with, close, re-opened. Twitter source is by a verified account - no further source required. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 02:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Best to improve article quality over the long run and avoid [[WP:PRIMARY]] sources. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::In the long run? In six weeks, the first series will be over, and no other source will be needed other than the episodes themselves. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 02:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Always best to use [[WP:SECONDARY]] sources in favor of [[WP:PRIMARY]] sources. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Not necessarily. Again, no sources will be needed for it in six weeks. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 02:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::If secondary sources exist, best to use them. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Orphaned references in [[:Class (2016 TV series)]] == |
|||
I check pages listed in [[:Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting]] to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for [[User:AnomieBOT/docs/OrphanReferenceFixer|orphaned references]] in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of [[:Class (2016 TV series)]]'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for ''this'' article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article. |
|||
<b>Reference named "auto":</b><ul> |
|||
<li>From [[BBC Three]]: {{cite news|url=http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/26/bbc-channel-extra-cuts-tony-hall|title=BBC could axe frontline channel or service as it seeks extra £100m in cuts|last=Plunkett|first=John|date=26 February 2014|work=[[The Guardian]]|accessdate=5 March 2014}}</li> |
|||
<li>From [[List of Doctor Who novelisations]]: {{cite web|url=https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/524629974826115072|title=Gareth Roberts on Twitter: "Bit of news: the amazingly talented @gossjam is now doing the book of City Of Death. It'll be fantastic!"|publisher=|accessdate=21 October 2014}}</li> |
|||
<li>From [[Companion (Doctor Who)]]: ''Ibid.''</li> |
|||
</ul> |
|||
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. [[User:AnomieBOT|AnomieBOT]][[User talk:AnomieBOT|<font color="#888800">⚡</font>]] 12:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Were these ever fixed? [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::I can't see auto anywhere--[[User:Ecto~enwiki|Ecto~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Ecto~enwiki|talk]]) 02:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yeah, me either, must be from an older version. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::A discussion from five months ago? Must be. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> |
|||
:::::[[User:Ecto~enwiki|Ecto~enwiki]], does it feel like we're being followed by a [[Weeping Angel]]? ROFLMAO. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Either that, or the page is on my watchlist. And I'm not the one attempting to start replies to every discussion on the page, but, hey. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 02:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::[[User:Ecto~enwiki|Ecto~enwiki]], this is getting really uncomfortable for me. I feel as if [[User:AlexTheWhovian]] is commenting in every single thing I express an opinion in. It feels like stalking and I wish it would stop. This makes me uncomfortable and apprehensive to contribute to talk page discussion. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::So, you are allowed to comment on every thread of this page, but I'm not allowed to, not allowed to reply? Now who's displaying [[WP:OWN]]. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 02:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::So you can call others on what you see is [[WP:OWN]], but when called on it yourself, it is an attack? That appears like [[WP:HYPOCRISY]]. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::You're demanding the ability to revive old discussions, reply on everything on here even if the discussion is closed, and then saying you're uncomfortable when other editors reply to all of your posts. Hypocrisy indeed! [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 02:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::You're demanding the ability to control the article and the talk page as you see fit, call out what you see is [[WP:OWN]], and threaten others who call [[WP:OWN]] on you. Hypocrisy indeed! [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Wrong. I am not. I am replying to your edits as they come up. They come up freely. I am being restricted to do so. Anyways, we digress, this has nothing to do with orphaned references. Your talk page is the correct place for this. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 02:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::Wrong. You are asking for the ability to accuse others of [[WP:OWN]], while asking for the immunity to [[WP:OWN]] yourself. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Directors Update == |
|||
NEW: https://twitter.com/Ruther2/status/735900081589649408 |
|||
Bazalgette is not the only director. |
|||
[[User:Badgerdog2|Badgerdog2]] ([[User talk:Badgerdog2|talk]]) 19:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Maybe we can get a better source for this info. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Here is a helpful secondary source: [http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/doctor-who/feature/a791888/doctor-who-spin-off-class-cast-air-date-spoilers-and-everything-you-need-to-know/ "Behind-the-scenes, Ness has written all eight episodes and Julian Homes has directed the "epic finale", with Doctor Who director Ed Bazalgette, Dickensian's Philippa Langdale and Misfits' Wayne Yip also helming multiple episodes."]. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't think you realise that this is all sorted now. The directors and which episodes they were allocated to have been confirmed by multiple official sources. End of. [[Special:Contributions/86.177.102.193|86.177.102.193]] ([[User talk:86.177.102.193|talk]]) 17:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Okay thank you ! [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 18:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Grammar == |
|||
"...expected to ''premiere'' in October." |
|||
I feel this is grammatically incorrect; I think it should be "''be premiered''" as I feel it is better grammar...[[Special:Contributions/95.83.254.129|95.83.254.129]] ([[User talk:95.83.254.129|talk]]) 23:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:"[T]o be premiered" is unnecessarily passive and unwieldy, whilst "to premiere" is concise and, more importantly, a widely used phrase. [[User:DonQuixote|DonQuixote]] ([[User talk:DonQuixote|talk]]) 23:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with Don. "To premiere" is widely used around the Television WikiProject; how exactly is "to be premiered" better grammar? I'm looking for the actual rules on grammar here, not just an opinion on what feels better. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 23:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have to admit that I was lazy and just used the IP's words in the edit summary. They're both grammatically correct, it's just that "to be premiered" is not a commonly used phrase and thus awkward. [[User:DonQuixote|DonQuixote]] ([[User talk:DonQuixote|talk]]) 00:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::This is old as it is now premiered already. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Then why did you reply to it? The matter was dealt with and closed. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 02:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::If so, then this section should be archived off the talk page. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I have added automatic archiving. But because you replied to an old post, it's going to take a while to do so. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 02:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Okay fine, no need to use wording pushing blame around. Please, try to be more [[WP:CIVIL]]. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I am civil. I'm just letting you know that responding to it will cause the discussion to take a month to archive. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 02:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Okay sounds good. You already pointed that out multiple times. Repeating it borders on incivility and patronising behavior. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::I just replied to user 69.50.70.9 on a different thread, but after reading some of your other comments I feel as though it was a waste of time. You have a very patronising and irritating manor of responding and you comment on threads that are clearly many months old in a way to make yourself sound clever. You're either incredibly stupid, or you are just trying to be smart. [[Special:Contributions/86.177.102.193|86.177.102.193]] ([[User talk:86.177.102.193|talk]]) 17:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Alright, sounds good. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 18:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Cast order based on ? == |
|||
Opening credit order or end credit order, as they are sometimes different. |
|||
As in Opening credits it has "And Katherine Kelly" at the end of the main cast listing. |
|||
In the end credits no "And" but placed first in the list |
|||
I think it should be based on opening credits as it used "And" which gives then more credit. Also the end credits can or are sometimes shown in order of appearance. If I recall Katherine was first or at in the beginning of the episode. |
|||
--[[User:Ecto~enwiki|Ecto~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Ecto~enwiki|talk]]) 22:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree here with [[User:Ecto~enwiki|Ecto~enwiki]], it should go by opening credit order. They generally go by alphabetical order and then sometimes have a special mention for actors as "and", yeah, good analysis. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Easter Eggs in show == |
|||
Wondering if we can add easter eggs into the main article. Mind you some of the might be considered spoilers by some. |
|||
ie like Buffy references and certain words on walls. etc. (trying to avoid spoilers.) |
|||
--[[User:Ecto~enwiki|Ecto~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Ecto~enwiki|talk]]) 23:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Only if they are actually notable and sourced. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 23:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you, [[User:Ecto~enwiki|Ecto~enwiki]], good example at: ''[http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-10-06/there-are-going-to-be-plenty-of-doctor-who-easter-eggs-in-spin-off-series-class There are going to be plenty of Doctor Who Easter eggs in spin-off series Class]''. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::As long as they're notable, and not just trainspotting. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 01:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::It is the entire title of the headline itself of the secondary source. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Here is another suggestion: [http://www.geek.com/television/doctor-who-and-class-bring-manic-british-sci-fi-to-nycc-1674014/ "He did say there will be plenty of more subtle Easter eggs for fans of classic Who. “You’re gonna see stuff you like,” he said to a fan who asked about a possible appearance from Ian and Barbara, The Doctor’s first companions."]. Hope it's helpful, [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Okay, I see, these are talking about the possibilities of the Easter eggs. So, what are the actual Easter eggs? And how are they notable? [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 02:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Could be used as sources in production, in writing inspiration, that the writers made sure to include [[Easter egg (media)]] in their writing process. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 03:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Here are actual Easter Eggs (scroll to #8) [[Spoilers]] in -> [http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-10-22/11-things-you-need-to-know-about-doctor-who-spin-off-class Item 8] There were more in the show but this article talks about 1 or 2 only. --[[User:Ecto~enwiki|Ecto~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Ecto~enwiki|talk]]) 03:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::That article doesn't explicitly say what the easter eggs are, so we can't use it at all for listing them. We can cite it for the fact that there were easter eggs, but that's about it. [[User:DonQuixote|DonQuixote]] ([[User talk:DonQuixote|talk]]) |
|||
:::::::: "a tribute to ex-companion and Coal Hill staff member Clara Oswald (Jenna Coleman)" aka easter egg with details. Also note the background in the included image in article. It's also already on Youtube!! --[[User:Ecto~enwiki|Ecto~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Ecto~enwiki|talk]]) 05:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Notice that the article doesn't say what the easter egg is--they just mentioned that one of the easter eggs is "a tribute...etc". And the picture is too low-res to show anything, and even then the reader would only know it had anything to do with the easter egg if they had seen the episode and put two-and-two together. Putting two-and-two together is [[WP:OR|original research]]. If we can't start with a direct quote (such as "Clara's name is shown on a list of names"), then it's not citeable. And YouTube is a big no-no as far as sources go. [[User:DonQuixote|DonQuixote]] ([[User talk:DonQuixote|talk]]) 05:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Introduction section == |
|||
The introduction section is way too short. |
|||
It is quite alright to have two sentences to summarise an entire section about the reception of the show. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 00:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:The lead section is actually quite sufficient in length, per [[MOS:TV]] guidelines. It doesn't need to be so specific when mentioning the reviews - that is what the Reception section is for; meaning that "The debut of the series received a positive reception" is already enough. It's expanded upon later. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 00:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Not really. I think that [[WP:LEAD]] takes precedence over [[MOS:TV]]. "This page in a nutshell: The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Right now, the article fails that. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 00:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::The introduction section should say SOMETHING on WHAT THE SHOW IS ACTUALLY ABOUT, yes??? [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 00:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::The lead already summarizes the page in a nutshell. Production team, release date, relation to original series, basic reception. Now you're just copying and duplicating content from other sections. Before you know it, the entire lead is a copy-paste of the whole article. You should understand that the [[WP:STATUSQUO|status quo]] should remain in place when a discussion is being held about content disputes. (Also, {{u|Amaury}}, was it an accident, the removal of the initial post of this discussion?) [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 00:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Nope. NOT copying and pasting. The reader should be able to read the introduction section and know a little bit about every single section of the article. AND ESPECIALLY THE PLOT AND PREMISE OF THE SHOW, LOL. Cmon man, surely the introduction should introduce the reader to the premise of the series itself and basically what it is about????????????????? [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 00:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The premise is ''right below'' the lead. It doesn't need summarizing again in two sections. And yes, you've basically copied it between the two sections with a small amount of copyedit. If you continue to edit-war over it, you will be reported. Leave the status quo in place while you are discussing it. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 01:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::What part of [[MOS:INTRO]] do you not understand? Maybe we can clarify it for you? [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
''' Tagged with lead too short problem ''' |
|||
Tagged top of article with {{tl|leadtooshort}}. |
|||
That tag explains it better than I can. |
|||
The reader should NOT have to read more than the introduction section to know basic info about the PREMISE and PLOT of the show. |
|||
The reader should NOT be expected to read further down. |
|||
The introduction itself should contain this information. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
''' Please read MOS:INTRO ''' |
|||
Please read [[MOS:INTRO]]: |
|||
'''''The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. ''''' |
|||
Notice how they say: '''''stand on its own as a concise version of the article'''''. |
|||
Right now, this article fails that. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:You need to learn how to keep a discussion in ''one'' section. The lead is not short enough. The premise does not belong in the lead. It seems you would rather edit-war over this. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 01:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::You are the one doing the edit warring. I have gone back to your version. Please, take some time to read [[MOS:INTRO]]. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Interesting. You were the one attempting to force your version against [[WP:STATUSQUO]], and ''I'm'' the one edit-warring? Interesting. But thank you for the self-revert. Perhaps you can apply what you have learned today in future discussions. I have been a major contributor of the [[WP:TV|Wikipedia:WikiProject Television]] for over two years now, so this isn't my first rodeo, or the first television article I've contributed to. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 01:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::You have failed to explain why you believe this article should ignore [[MOS:INTRO]]. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I already have. The guideline sufficiently applies here. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 01:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::You have failed to explain why this article should ignore [[MOS:INTRO|stand on its own as a concise version of the article]] part of [[MOS:INTRO]]. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
''' Both Torchwood AND The Sarah Jane Adventures explain the premise in the intro ''' |
|||
Both ''[[Torchwood]]'' AND ''[[The Sarah Jane Adventures]]'' explain the premise in the intro. |
|||
This is as per [[MOS:INTRO]]. |
|||
This article should follow the model at ''[[Torchwood]]'' AND ''[[The Sarah Jane Adventures]]'' and explain the premise in the intro. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:It does stand. And do learn how to keep everything to one section. Now read [[WP:OTHER]]. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 01:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Read that. Now can you read [[MOS:INTRO]] and explain why this article should ignore that? [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Wow. Getting a massive sense of deja vu. Already have. The lead stands sufficiently as it is. Once the series get to multiple series, ''then'' perhaps it would be an idea to summarize it in the lead. However, this particular show has had ''two'' episodes. Give me an example of a one-season show that has a summary in both the lead and premise section. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 01:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Give me an example of a one-season show that has a summary in both the lead and premise section. Sure. How about your two [[WP:GA]]s??? How about [[Sense8]]? And how about [[Forever (U.S. TV series)]]? Those are both two example of a one-season show that has a summary in both the lead and premise section. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Ah, yes. That one-sentence summary in the lead, that isn't almost a full copy of another section, that can sufficiently be merged into another paragraph. For series that have both had ''full'' seasons (one is only months away from its second), and not merely two episode released. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 01:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::You seem to be making up your own Wikipedia standards as you go along. You ask for examples. I give you TWO examples from your own [[WP:GA]] contributions. You make up NEW reasons to IGNORE those examples and IGNORE [[MOS:INTRO]]. But fine. Can we agree to disagree, and compromise on, as you say, "one-sentence summary in the lead" ??? [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Do attempt to remain [[WP:CIVIL]]. And no, I do not agree with that, as the article doesn't need it. It's two episodes into its release; it doesn't need to separate summarizations. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 01:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Alex, perhaps YOU can suggest a compromise that YOU would be okay with, as an attempt for YOU to be a model on how we can both be [[WP:CIVIL]] ? Can you suggest ''something'' we can add to the intro about the premise? [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::''The first series of eight episodes premiered on BBC Three on 22 October 2016, which focuses on six of the students and staff at [[Coal Hill School|Coal Hill Academy]], dealing with alien threats.'' That's as probably as much as it needs. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 01:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::[[Timeless (TV series)]] is a show with only a few episodes and has Lead and Premise with short summary of series. --[[User:Ecto~enwiki|Ecto~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Ecto~enwiki|talk]]) 01:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Thank you, {{u|Ecto~enwiki}}, I agree with you that [[Timeless (TV series)]] is yet another good example of a TV series article with a better intro section. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Should the introduction section on the TV series contain a summary of the premise? == |
|||
'''New section for incoming [[WP:Third Opinion]]. ''' |
|||
'''''Please leave as new section:''''' |
|||
#[[MOS:LEAD]] states: ''"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic."'' |
|||
#[[MOS:INTRO]] states: ''"The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."'' |
|||
#Models of ''[[Doctor Who]]'' spin-offs at ''[[Torchwood]]'' and ''[[The Sarah Jane Adventures]]'' both explain the premise in the intro section. |
|||
#{{u|Ecto~enwiki}} helpfully pointed out: ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Class_(2016_TV_series)&diff=745743381&oldid=745743125 "Timeless (TV series) is a show with only a few episodes and has Lead and Premise with short summary of series."]''. |
|||
#Indeed, even two [[WP:GA]] quality articles contributed by {{u|AlexTheWhovian}}, himself, are both only one season long, and both contain info in the intro section on the premise of those two TV series. These are ''[[Sense8]]'' and ''[[Forever (U.S. TV series)]]''. |
|||
#The {{tl|leadtooshort}} tag explains this problem better than anyone else can, it states that the intro section should: ''"provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article."'' |
|||
For all of these reasons, the reader should be able to ignore the entire rest of the article, only read the intro section itself, and be able to come away understanding a summary of the plot or the basic premise of the TV series. |
|||
Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
----- |
|||
:7. (Added by {{u|AlexTheWhovian}}) A summary of ''The first series of eight episodes premiered on BBC Three on 22 October 2016, which focuses on six of the students and staff at [[Coal Hill School|Coal Hill Academy]], dealing with alien threats.'' was proposed, but no reply has come from the requesting editor in regards to it. |
|||
----- |
|||
:Do you not know how to keep a discussion to ''one'' section?? And I assume that you reject the proposal that I put across, then. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 01:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::We should have a ''new section'', specifically for the [[WP:Third Opinion]] process. Unfortunately, after citing multiple helpful parts of Wikipedia site policy and having them summarily ignored, including case studies and opinion by {{u|Ecto~enwiki}}, I felt and I hope that a [[WP:Third Opinion]] might help to constructively move the discussion process forward in a more civil manner where all parties listen to each other and have more of a give and take feedback in the discussion. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::And again: And I assume that you reject the proposal that I put across, then. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 01:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Unfortunately, at this point I'm a bit apprehensive about further discussion due to being ignored on Wikipedia site policy, above. I thank {{u|Ecto~enwiki}} for the helpful comment, above. I hope we can use the [[WP:Third Opinion]] process as a way to step back, and listen to each other more earnestly and have more of a give and take dialogue instead of attempted [[WP:OWNERSHIP]] of the page by one party. Compromise would be appreciated moving forwards. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Policies? What policies? All I'm seeing are non-solid guidelines. And good luck with further discussions, since you with to stab other editors with false accusations of [[WP:OWN]] and refuse to compromise when give alternate options. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 12:19 pm, Today (UTC+10.5) |
|||
Please, leave this as new section for separate [[WP:Third Opinion]] process, separate from above. Thank you for respecting this dispute resolution process ! [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Your constant accusations of [[WP:OWN]] are wearing my patience with you extremely thin, on the edge of reporting you to the administrators. Is this the same discussion as the one above? Yes? Sub-section. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 01:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Is this the first attempt at outside seeking help from [[WP:Dispute resolution]] by [[WP:Third Opinion]] on this talk page? Yes. New section. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::[[User:AlexTheWhovian]] -- can we please at least agree to both take a break, and wait to hear from respondents to the [[WP:Third Opinion]] request? [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 01:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sure, let's do that. Also, I added to the 3O request, that you seemed to have missed. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 01:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thank you. Your numbering seems fine. I can agree to helpfully await the third opinion. :) [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It seems you agreed to the alternate suggestion. So, is the 3O really necessary after all? [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 03:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I would rather have much more info as a summary in the introduction. So I put in your suggestion as a temporary measure, for now, as you removed the {{tl|leadtooshort}} tag from the top of the page. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 03:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} |
|||
Coming via [[WP:3O]]. I'd say the current amount of coverage of the series' premise in the lead ("... focuses on six of the students and staff at Coal Hill Academy, dealing with alien threats") is about adequate, though I'm not sure making it part of a sentence referring only to "The first series of eight episodes" is a good idea. Presumably any subsequent episodes (if more are created) will still have the same premise. Leaving the premise out of the lead altogether does not seem appropriate; on the other hand, adding half the "premise" section to the lead clearly is too much. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 04:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Okay thank you, {{u|Huon}}, that sounds like a good [[WP:Third Opinion]]. I'm glad you agree with me that ''" Leaving the premise out of the lead altogether does not seem appropriate"''. Thank you very very much for stopping by here to give us your [[WP:Third Opinion]]. Now we know that skipping to the "Premise" section and "Leaving the premise out of the lead altogether does not seem appropriate". [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 04:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::And we also know that "adding half the "premise" section to the lead clearly is too much", like how it was originally added. Thank you for the 3O. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 04:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::And we know that "skipping" to the "Premise" section, with nothing whatsoever about the "Premise" in the lead, "does not seem appropriate". So that was clearly the wrong idea per site guidelines. Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 04:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Definitely. And we know that copy-pasting almost half of an entire section was also wrong. Glad we could settle on the compromise that I initialyl suggested. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 04:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Definitely. Glad you settled on having ''something'' from the "Premise" in the intro, and can now agree that your idea before to have ''nothing'' from the Premise in the intro, was wrong. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 04:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Okay, now you're just trying to make this into a back-and-forth tennis match. 3O is dealt with. So's the discussion. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 04:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Agreed. Hopefully you'll be much more amenable and quicker to try out compromise in the future. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 04:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I look forward to the same. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 04:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I look forward to the same, as well, {{u|AlexTheWhovian}}. I'm glad we could end this discussion on a more amicable note with promise towards improved style of discussion in the future, for all parties involved. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 04:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Archiving == |
|||
We all agree the threads are old. |
|||
Let's just archive them please. |
|||
We need to stop having violations of [[WP:OWN]] and having one user control this talk page and its ongoing discussions at every single subsection. |
|||
Thank you. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Done by bots, not at some editor's own discretion, who is trying to control the talk page by archiving what ''they'' think is dealt with. Upon what policy are you basing your actions on? How do you determine yourself to be the one who gets to decide what is and is not archived? [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 02:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::The user agrees that these threads are old, at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Class_(2016_TV_series)&diff=745746690&oldid=745746606]. Therefore, the only conceivable rationale to un-archive them, is to control [[WP:OWN]] at this talk page, the article, all the subsections. And that does nothing for moving discussion forwards in a civil way. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Again: How do you determine yourself to be the one who gets to decide what is and is not archived? What makes you king of this page? It seems that you simply do not want further replies to these discussions - that's not up to you to decide. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 02:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Again: You yourself said the posts were old [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Class_(2016_TV_series)&diff=745746690&oldid=745746606]. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*Archiving here is done by bots. You could conceivably propose a quicker turnover, but that's quite another matter. That threads are old does not mean they are not of interest to other readers, and that has nothing to do with claiming ownership. IP, kindly stop edit warring, and kindly stop making false accusations. Your behavior on this talk page is disruptive. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 02:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
**Okay fine, I agree with this third opinion comment. I won't object to the auto archiving after the helpful explanation from the third party. Thank you ! [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well said, {{u|Drmies}}, and thank you. Some sense. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 02:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yes, thank you. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 02:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Using 2 column format == |
|||
Personally I don't like it , here, and don't recall seeing it on any other shows. --[[User:Ecto~enwiki|Ecto~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Ecto~enwiki|talk]]) 19:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:I've been editing articles on television series for over two years now, and it's an extremely common format. Do you have any other arguments against it other than [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]? [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 21:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Nothing else just no likey LOL. Just an FYI none of the shows I currently watch have column format for cast. And this list is very long, some of them might get setup in dual column layout but not by me. Most of the shows I have scanned are on 1st season like "Class" however many have full Bio of each character ie 1 line of text each. --[[User:Ecto~enwiki|Ecto~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Ecto~enwiki|talk]]) 01:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Personally I think the layout by {{u|AlexTheWhovian}} looks quite fine right now with the spacing for the references. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 04:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Plot Summary Length == |
|||
The Guide states "100–200 words; upwards of 350 words for complex storylines", Episode 1 is 224 words at present. I fell that Class should be considered Complex Storylines, and should warrant longer then 200 words. Example of another show with more then 200 words [[The Good Place]] which is 260 words long and this is a 1/2 hour show (22mins) --[[User:Ecto~enwiki|Ecto~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Ecto~enwiki|talk]]) 02:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:1) No, it doesn't. [[WP:TVPLOT]]: "{{tq|approximately 100–200 words for each, as articles using {{tl|episode list}} should not exceed 200 words in accordance with the instructions for that template}}". Having edited television articles for over two years, 200 has always been the accepted maximum. The limit of 350 was removed, because anyone could deem any series to be "complex". 2) Please read [[WP:OTHER]] - just because articles do it, doesn't mean it's alright. I'll tag that article as well. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 02:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with {{u|AlexTheWhovian}}, seems alright the way it is so far for the time being. [[Special:Contributions/69.50.70.9|69.50.70.9]] ([[User talk:69.50.70.9|talk]]) 04:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Two-Parter == |
|||
https://twitter.com/Patrick_Ness/status/792302788214722560 |
|||
This tweet confirms episode 4 and 5 are a two part story (makes sense considering the similar titles, and same director). Way to change template so that it includes separate columns for story numbers and episode numbers - like with ''Doctor Who''? [[Special:Contributions/86.177.102.193|86.177.102.193]] ([[User talk:86.177.102.193|talk]]) 15:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:''Doctor Who'' is a unique case, because of how it is grouped by story numbers. ''Class'' is listed by overall episode number, per the majority of television series articles. One example of a two-parter where the episodes are listed separately can be seen at [[Constantine (TV series)#ep8]], for episodes 8 and 9 of the series. Also, a distinct way of noting a two-parter, where it's not reflected in the episodes' titles, can be seen at [[Castle (season 8)#ep152]], where (Part 1) and (Part 2) are appended to the beginning of the episode summary. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 02:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Ok that makes sense - thanks for clarifying. [[Special:Contributions/86.177.102.193|86.177.102.193]] ([[User talk:86.177.102.193|talk]]) 13:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Guest in the cast list == |
|||
{{u|Fan4Life}}, I have reverted to the [[WP:STATUSQUO|status quo]] while discussion is in place; you are invited to discuss the content until a consensus can be formed. Taking a look at another article (for example, [[Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3)]], which has been promoted to a Good Article status), you can see that the guests are indeed listed. I could list a many other articles as well. The only time that guests are not listed in a cast list is when a List of Characters article exists, and then only the main cast and characters are listed. Yes, we may not list ''every'' guest, as the list would get ridiculous, but only notable guests - and this particular guest should most definitely be included for his notability, given that his character is the main character of the parent series. Feel free to list any guidelines or opposing views to this. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> |
|||
:I vote for Notable actors/actresses being included in what every placement in a cast list. Peter Capaldi has for sure earned the status to be included. Also Peter is not actually listed as Guest or Special, he gets the "With" modifier and placed after the main cast in the credits. --[[User:Ecto~enwiki|Ecto~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Ecto~enwiki|talk]]) 01:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Reliable sources in the article credit him as a guest appearance. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 01:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::{{u|Fan4Life}}, I'm pinging you here again. Either enter this discussion and gain a differing consensus, leaving the status quo as it is until then, or stand by the current consensus. Continuous removals of the content may face in a report for edit-warring. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 03:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Guest cast are not notable. Anyone who gets a "With" in the opening credits is a significant guest, but still guest. Guest cast aren't a fundamental part of the show that require listing in the cast section. A season page is different to the parent page, the parent page only needs to include main and recurring cast. Other pages don't matter, as per [[WP:OTHER]]. [[User:Fan4Life|Fan4Life]] ([[User talk:Fan4Life|talk]]) 22:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Then if other pages don't matter, then you use your own logic and understanding of the series. Was the guest an extremely prominent actor/character who set up the events of the series? Yes? Notable. And given that there isn't a season page yet, the main article doubles as a season page (bit obvious). [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 01:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Maybe we can use a different heading , take a look at this older show article [[Las_Vegas_(TV_series)]] not only does it have a section for Notable guest stars but also for Cameos. --[[User:Ecto~enwiki|ecto~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Ecto~enwiki|talk]]) 15:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I was thinking that. How about having 'Special Guest' as the heading? [[User:Fan4Life|Fan4Life]] ([[User talk:Fan4Life|talk]]) 19:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::"Notable guests" would probably be just fine, especially if other notable guests join the series and they're not credited as "special guests". [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 23:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Links to episode pages == |
|||
Here's an easy list of the links to the episode articles for when they're developed (not redirecting): |
|||
# {{noredirect|For Tonight We Might Die}} (done as of this post) |
|||
# {{noredirect|The Coach with the Dragon Tattoo}} |
|||
# {{noredirect|Nightvisiting}} |
|||
# {{noredirect|Co-Owner of a Lonely Heart}} |
|||
# {{noredirect|Brave-ish Heart}} |
|||
# {{noredirect|Detained (Class)}} |
|||
# {{noredirect|The Metaphysical Engine, or What Quill Did}} |
|||
# {{noredirect|The Lost (Class)}} |
|||
However, do remember that there is [[WP:NORUSH|no rush]]. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 09:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: Actually? I see we’ve an entry for the first episode; but not for the other broadcast episodes. I can appreciate there’s no rush. But I’m writing this comment on the Wednesday after Episode 5 became available. Sure we should have separate entries for those episode, by now? [[User:Cuddy2977|Cuddy2977]] ([[User talk:Cuddy2977|talk]]) 21:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm sure that editors will get around to creating the articles eventually. They could be created next year and it'd be no matter. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#16329F;text-shadow:3px 3px 8px #102372;">'''Alex'''|''The''|'''Whovian'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<span style="color:#8F0104">'''?'''</span>]]</sup> 00:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::I feel as if there should be more of an urgency to this. Not right now, but soon. There's already a backlog of five episodes that have aired, and this backlog will grow until no one will be bothered to create the pages due to there being so much work. [[Special:Contributions/109.151.161.213|109.151.161.213]] ([[User talk:109.151.161.213|talk]]) 13:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 16:08, 30 January 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Class (2016 TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lede
[edit]Why do we need the phrase "BBC Three controller Damian Kavanagh confirmed" in the lede? That seems like unnecessary detail for a lede. Bondegezou (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Because in this version, it states the following: "
However, it scored poor viewership figures for its broadcast on BBC One and was cancelled.
" This indicates that the series was cancelled due to the poor viewership figures, for which there is no source to back this statement up. -- AlexTW- OK, what about: "However, it scored poor viewership figures for its broadcast on BBC One. It was subsequently cancelled." ?? Bondegezou (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Poor sentence structure on the latter. "It was subsequently cancelled"? When? Who said so? -- AlexTW 11:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's the lede: it's a summary. What matters for the lede is that is was cancelled. Who said so is not a detail you need there: it's given in the main text later on. One could have something about when but it doesn't seem that important. Bondegezou (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- "It was subsequently cancelled" is not a summary, it's a stunted sentence that is an attempt to force the guidelines to extremes by providing only the smallest of detail. -- AlexTW 11:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- I really don't see where you're coming from with that last comment. Who confirmed the news is a minor point and not what's needed in the lede. I had a look through Category:2016 British television programme endings and couldn't see any other article lede that named who said a series had been cancelled. I can't see anything wrong with short sentences myself, but if you don't like the construction, I'm not bothered about the exact phrasing. It's just weird to suddenly have so much detail. Bondegezou (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- "It was subsequently cancelled" is not a summary, it's a stunted sentence that is an attempt to force the guidelines to extremes by providing only the smallest of detail. -- AlexTW 11:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's the lede: it's a summary. What matters for the lede is that is was cancelled. Who said so is not a detail you need there: it's given in the main text later on. One could have something about when but it doesn't seem that important. Bondegezou (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Poor sentence structure on the latter. "It was subsequently cancelled"? When? Who said so? -- AlexTW 11:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- OK, what about: "However, it scored poor viewership figures for its broadcast on BBC One. It was subsequently cancelled." ?? Bondegezou (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Ratings
[edit]fuller version of them here if anyone wants to convert this into a table in the article:
https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/class-season-one-ratings/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZarhanFastfire (talk • contribs)
- That's for BBC America, not BBC Three. -- AlexTW 04:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)