Talk:Class (2016 TV series)/Archive 1

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.

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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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. 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??? 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 status quo should remain in place when a discussion is being held about content disputes. (Also,, was it an accident, the removal of the initial post of this discussion?) Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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????????????????? 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 01:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What part of MOS:INTRO do you not understand? Maybe we can clarify it for you? 69.50.70.9 (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

 Tagged with lead too short problem 

Tagged top of article with 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.

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.

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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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. 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Television for over two years now, so this isn't my first rodeo, or the first television article I've contributed to. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 01:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You have failed to explain why you believe this article should ignore MOS:INTRO. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I already have. The guideline sufficiently applies here. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 01:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You have failed to explain why this article should ignore stand on its own as a concise version of the article part of MOS:INTRO. 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.

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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 01:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Read that. Now can you read MOS:INTRO and explain why this article should ignore that? 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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:GAs??? 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. 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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" ??? 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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? 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 Academy, dealing with alien threats. That's as probably as much as it needs. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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. --Ecto~enwiki (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, I agree with you that Timeless (TV series) is yet another good example of a TV series article with a better intro section. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 01:46, 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.

--Ecto~enwiki (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree here with 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. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Director(s)
https://twitter.com/Patrick_Ness/status/716964438566428673

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.

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. :)

Badgerdog2 (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2016 (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 website also shows Langdale as a Class director. 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? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could read the citations of your fellow editors rather than reverting edits out of hand. 50.37.24.81 (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. That makes it alright to make the article a complete shambles, with "TBA",, "TBA", redlinks, one-line paragraphs. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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? 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Best to improve article quality over the long run and avoid WP:PRIMARY sources. 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Always best to use WP:SECONDARY sources in favor of WP:PRIMARY sources. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Again, no sources will be needed for it in six weeks. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If secondary sources exist, best to use them. 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 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.

Reference named "auto": From BBC Three:  From List of Doctor Who novelisations:  From Companion (Doctor Who): Ibid. 

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. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Were these ever fixed? 69.50.70.9 (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't see auto anywhere--Ecto~enwiki (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me either, must be from an older version. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A discussion from five months ago? Must be. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ?
 * Ecto~enwiki, does it feel like we're being followed by a Weeping Angel? ROFLMAO. 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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. 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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. 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! Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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! 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 02:46, 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.

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? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The user agrees that these threads are old, at . 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. 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Again: You yourself said the posts were old . 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. 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 ! 69.50.70.9 (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well said,, and thank you. Some sense. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 02:49, 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:


 * 1) MOS:LEAD states: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic."
 * 2) 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."
 * 3) Models of Doctor Who spin-offs at Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures both explain the premise in the intro section.
 * 4) helpfully pointed out: "Timeless (TV series) is a show with only a few episodes and has Lead and Premise with short summary of series.".
 * 5) Indeed, even two WP:GA quality articles contributed by, 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).
 * 6) The 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. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

-
 * 7. (Added by ) 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 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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, 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. 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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 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. 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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 ! 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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. 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? 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 01:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Your numbering seems fine. I can agree to helpfully await the third opinion. :) 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? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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 leadtooshort tag from the top of the page. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

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. Huon (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay thank you,, 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". 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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. 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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. 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 04:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Hopefully you'll be much more amenable and quicker to try out compromise in the future. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I look forward to the same. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 04:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I look forward to the same, as well, . 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. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 04:43, 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.) --Ecto~enwiki (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Only if they are actually notable and sourced. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ecto~enwiki, good example at: There are going to be plenty of Doctor Who Easter eggs in spin-off series Class. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as they're notable, and not just trainspotting. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 01:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is the entire title of the headline itself of the secondary source. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is another suggestion: "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, 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? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are actual Easter Eggs (scroll to #8) Spoilers in -> Item 8 There were more in the show but this article talks about 1 or 2 only. --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. 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!! --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 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. DonQuixote (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Directors Update
NEW: https://twitter.com/Ruther2/status/735900081589649408

Bazalgette is not the only director.

Badgerdog2 (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can get a better source for this info. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a helpful secondary source: "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.". 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. 86.177.102.193 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay thank you ! 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...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. 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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. DonQuixote (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is old as it is now premiered already. 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If so, then this section should be archived off the talk page. 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay fine, no need to use wording pushing blame around. Please, try to be more WP:CIVIL. 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay sounds good. You already pointed that out multiple times. Repeating it borders on incivility and patronising behavior. 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. 86.177.102.193 (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, sounds good. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 18:03, 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. --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? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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. --Ecto~enwiki (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the layout by looks quite fine right now with the spacing for the references. 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) --Ecto~enwiki (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) No, it doesn't. WP:TVPLOT: "approximately 100–200 words for each, as articles using 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with, seems alright the way it is so far for the time being. 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? 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), 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), where (Part 1) and (Part 2) are appended to the beginning of the episode summary. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok that makes sense - thanks for clarifying. 86.177.102.193 (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Guest in the cast list
, I have reverted to the 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ?
 * 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. --Ecto~enwiki (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources in the article credit him as a guest appearance. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 01:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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. 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). Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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. --ecto~enwiki (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that. How about having 'Special Guest' as the heading? 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". Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Naming conventions
As a long time (30+ years) fan of Doctor Who, the one nitpick that I have with this article is that it was originally Coal Hill School rather than academy. Unless the cannon has been changed, shouldn't this be corrected? Hx823 (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The name's been changed for this programme. DonQuixote (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Links to episode pages
Here's an easy list of the links to the episode articles for when they're developed (not redirecting): However, do remember that there is no rush. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 09:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  (done as of this post)


 * 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? 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. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 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. 109.151.161.213 (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Noting that some of these are still redirects 7-ish months later I would say that's probably a sign of lack of interest in this series, but I'm sure someone will get around to them eventually. In the US they tried to tie Class to Series 10 of Who, unsuccessfully, but once the Who season ends maybe there'll be a interest in filling in these blanks. 136.159.160.4 (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ratings and future
Although I am aware that (as of June 22/17) the BBC has yet to officially renew or cancel the series, there has been some non-trivial (i.e. non-tabloid) media stories from earlier in the year that said a second series was unlikely. The article could also stand to be updated with the ratings from BBC America. I'd also contend that there were more poor reviews than positive ones for this series, but I don't know what criteria Wikipedia chooses for deciding what outlets to include. In any event, while it may be premature to report on the show's survival (though its creator Patrick Ness has stated that he considers it to have been cancelled, that's not the same as an official announcement), there is additional information out there that could be used to flesh this out. I've also seen some (again non-trivial) articles examining why the series was rejected by Who fandom and general viewership. 136.159.160.4 (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've edited the infobox to change the end date to the end of the first season. There's nothing to show the series has a future, so under WP:V and WP:CBALL, we can but report what is known. This follows discussion at the Doctor Who article: see this. Bondegezou (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Restored the article. You need to gain consensus for this, so I recommend that you first read the documentation at Template:Infobox television for the last_aired parameter, please. In full, it reads thus:
 * The first air date of the show's last episode on its original network. Use "present" if the show is ongoing or renewed and End date if the show is ended. Only insert the last episode's date after it has happened. - This means that "present" is changed to a date only if the series is officially cancelled.
 * In some cases the fate of a program might be uncertain, for example if there are no announcements that a show has been renewed. If such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months, "present" can be changed to the date the last episode aired, using End date. This does not imply the series has been cancelled, rather that the program "last aired" on that date. This is to prevent programs from being listed as "present" in perpetuity. This is clearly not the situation for Class at the current time.
 * That is, if the series has not been officially cancelled, the "present" remains. If you disagree with this, you will need to start a discussion at either the Manual of Style/Television or WikiProject Television, as this is the consensus that has held by both of these pages for years, and for hundreds if not thousands of television series' articles. Cheers. --  Alex TW 15:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No. I think you're overinterpreting what the Template guidance says. Nothing there says you have to wait 12 months before changing "present" to the last date aired. We are clearly allowed to put an end date earlier. WP:V is absolutely core policy: if "Class" has some sort of existence beyond 2016, then WP:PROVEIT by giving a reliable source citation. The documentation you cite begins, "In some cases the fate of a program might be uncertain": can you even evidence that "Class"'s fate is "uncertain"? Bondegezou (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The conclusion that "if the series has not been officially cancelled, the "present" remains" is your interpretation. It is not what the guidance says. The guidance refers to what to do in cases of uncertainty. Demonstrate that there is real uncertainty over "Class", using WP:RS. Bondegezou (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I know exactly what I'm speaking of. I'm following the guidelines that have been used on the article for every other television series, which were created from the results of multiple discussions - why should Class be any different? Simply because you did not participate in them, does not mean you do not need to abide by them - if you would like further conformation of this, I point you to those who Wikipedia articles I've linked you to, start a discussion there, and you'll find exactly the same thing. You are the one changing the article from the status quo, so by your own words... WP:V is absolutely core policy: if "Class" does not some sort of existence beyond 2016, then WP:PROVEIT by giving a reliable source citation. You say Nothing there says you have to wait 12 months before changing "present" to the last date aired. I say, what? If such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months, "present" can be changed to the date the last episode aired, using End date. The series has neither been officially renewed nor officially cancelled - hence, uncertainty towards its future. As requested. --  Alex TW 15:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You say above that the guidance means, "That is, if the series has not been officially cancelled, the "present" remains." Please show me where it says that in the MOS or in the infobox template. I don't see it anywhere; forgive me if I've missed it. You've quoted what the infobox template says, and it says something different. The infobox template refers to "such a program", meaning a program described by the previous sentence, namely, "In some cases the fate of a program might be uncertain". It then says "If such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months, "present" can be changed to the date": note the use of the word "can".
 * Discussions on Wikipedia are not based on personal authority: my apologies, I know you're an active editor and respect the work you put in, but you can't just handwave "I know exactly what I'm speaking of". Edits should be determined based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines if possible. WP:PROVEIT applies here, as it applies everywhere. You haven't provided any reliable sources to show "Class" is still an active concern or even that there is significant uncertainty around it (as the infobox template calls for). The lack of a cancellation announcement alone does not seem like evidence for uncertainty: numerous UK shows never get cancellation announcements. It's not a routine thing whose absence is telling.
 * Of course, we can also look at existing consensus and practice on other articles if policy and guidelines haven't solved the problem. If you have links to specific, comparable past examples, I'd love to read them.
 * Wikipedia is not about the formulaic application of rules, as you appear to be suggesting. I've looked at MOS for TV, I've looked at the infobox template, I know WP:V: I see no support for a simplistic rule that we have to wait 12 months if there hasn't been a formal cancellation announcement. Of all these things, WP:V is clearly the most important and WP:V has a simple rule that we speak of which we know, and what we know is when the last episode of "Class" was broadcast. Meanwhile, I note no-one else appears to have supported your position, but at least one other editor has made the same edit I'm arguing for (since reverted by you).
 * I hope others will contribute to this discussion to help find a consensus and resolve the matter. Bondegezou (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that the series is in limbo and there's probably not many editors watching it, let along watching the talk page, I doubt you'll get the editors you're wanting. However, I have posted at the Television WikiProject and Manual of Style, to bring in the opinions of the editors who implement this content. --  Alex TW 12:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Alex's interpretation of the infobox instructions, and standing consensus, is correct. Once a series starts airing, it is considered to remain airing until such time as it is cancelled. This caused problems in the past when some series were never cancelled, because "present" then remained in the infobox forever. For that reason about 3 years ago we added the text that now says that if no episodes had aired in the past 12 months, present could be replaced with the date that the last episode aired. In the case of this series, if no new episodes have aired by 3 December 2017 and there has been no cancellation notice, "present" should be replaced with 3 December 2016. Until then, present remains. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, and doubly so for non-US shows, which can be ordered at any time and don't stick to such a strict 'season' schedule where it is clearly appropriate to infer that a show is cancelled if it's not on anyone's e.g. fall lineup. Jclemens (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PROVEIT works both ways: can it be proven it's been cancelled? Then WP:STATUSQUO. Unless there's a clear indication one way or another (in the US/Canada context, if there had been reports the cast had been released from their contracts, even in the absence of an official report of cancellation, that would be clear evidence). At this point, less than a year after the last episode has aired, you cannot claim there's a common sense understanding that no new episodes will be made, especially in the British context *cough Sherlock (TV series) Black Mirror cough*. The end date should be switched back to "present" —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)