Talk:Orphan Black

Removing all mention of clones

I don't undertand the unexplained rationale for repeatedly removing all mention of clones from the article. The main character's clones is the key point of the entire story. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, for those who haven't seen the series yet and are just finding out about it, it's really annoying having someone ruin a major plot point in the first line of the article. 31.55.116.148 (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPOILERS. It's not like the fact that they're clones is a huge spoiler. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 05:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Science Errors

Someone added a section called "Science Errors", where they claimed Episode 3 was incorrect for saying that the clones would have similar fingerprints. I removed it. The show never said that they would have identical fingerprints, just that the fingerprints would be similar enough for a database match. That's apparently true. Identical twins have similar (but not identical) fingerprints. See: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1277/do-identical-twins-have-different-fingerprints InscrutableTed (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Reading beyond the first paragraph of your cited source would show that the Science Errors section is correct. Twins have "similar" fingerprints to the human eye, but not even close to identical prints for the purposes of a database match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.6.73 (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I added the "dubious-discuss" link to this section of the article because, quite frankly, it's dubious! - First of all, this is a TV show. It's fiction. How cares about the arrogant (and unssuported) assertion that there is a "science error?" This brings us to the second problem: the scientific information cited refers to twins. So what!? Twins are NOT clones. How do you know that clones would not have the same exact fingerprints? Has this been tested? If so, on whom? Where? When? -- Stop trying to make dubious geek-squad attacks on fiction. --Nietzschean-Dissident 21:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlon (talk • contribs)

Identical twins are clones - two individuals with the identical DNA, is the very definition of what a clone is. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

All the "science errors" are WP:SYNTHESIS. So I deleted them. Read that guideline before reverting. Only "errors" reported by WP:RS can be mentioned, not those deduced by editors. Anyway, it's a thriller, not a science lecture. 202.81.242.28 (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree that the section is valid. How's this source?

Doesn't look like "synthesis" to me, the science is very clear that the uniqueness of a fingerprint for the purposes of a database match is caused by random developmental forces, ridge formation patterns emerging in the womb. The only way two clones would have identical fingerprints was if they are not genetic twins gestated in one or more wombs, but were "atomically printed" copies of each other post-birth. Imagine a "Star Trek" style tele-porter where you kept a copy at both ends. Then you could have nearly identical fingerprints (they would diverge only ever so slightly over the course of a life time, the main patterns are fixed in the womb).

Understanding fingerprint uniqueness is a classic case study of how developmental and genetic forces interact to determine physical characteristics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.84.130 (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You concluding that "the science is clear" = WP:SYNTHESIS. Obviously you didn't bother to look at the definition. Cite a reliable source (i.e., not some random blog or forum) that says that the show's science is wrong and that's fine. (NOT a source that says something about fingerprints in general, as your link does, but specifically about Orphan Black.) Saying, even "proving" as you think you have done, yourself is not. 202.81.248.120 (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio Episode Summaries

Please be advised that you can't just take episode summaries from BBC America/other promotional material and paste them on Wikipedia. I have removed all the episode summaries so far. If someone wants to write their own brief summaries of each episode, that's optimal. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No original research, please!

Every bit of info in this article must be referenced. This is extremely important. Please see WP:ORIGINAL, as well as WP:SECONDARY. Thanks. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Nationality column

I'm not much of an editor.. but I believe that either the title of the 'Nationality' column should be changed to 'Country', or the contents of the column should be changed from country names to nationalities. ie. Canada -> Canadian, Italy -> Italian, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.219.38.135 (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Red link actors

I deleted the red links on actors' names. As WP:NOTRED.

"Red links to personal names should be avoided—particularly when the name is reported in a context which might cause readers to hold a low or critical opinion of the named individual. Frequently a red-linked name has been placed in an article, and subsequently a different editor has created an article about an entirely different person with the same or a similar name."

They are certainly personal names. Actors are persons. There is no exclusion for actors in the above guideline. But many other people may have the same "personal name". We don't know which if any will ever have articles created that these links will then point to. Especially one is a child who is now not notable and may never have another role, at least not for many years. 202.81.249.245 (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this. Any disagreements should be discussed in the talk page, please. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please re read the policy again, and in particular in its entirety. They are not PERSONAL names. Personal names refer to people who are un-notable and will appear in notable persons wiki articles as it is explained with the line "when the name is reported in a context which might cause readers to hold a low or critical opinion of the named individual." Which means such as those in biography articles. That is what is meant by Personal names. For example the name of his children and new non-notable wife in the article John Clark (actor) where the PERSONAL names are not red links. Red links to actors/actresses/directors etc have no other purpose than to expand Wikipedia which is why they are included. You may think they are messy/eye sore. But that is not a justified reason for their exclusion. -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I read the policy at WP:NOTRED, I quoted it above, there is nothing there to support the idea that "Personal names refer to people who are un-notable". Please cite where you get this from. (You deny that "Barack Obama" is a personal name because he's notable?) A "personal name" is just the name of a human being. Famous, notable, or not. As distinct from the names of things like, say, a city, species of animal, geographic feature, historical event... which are less likely to be ambiguous than a personal name. (Note your John Clark (actor) had to be disambiguated; you don't know what disambiguation might be used if articles for these people are later created.) And also any living person, actor or not, has to be treated carefully (per WP:BLP policies) as creating a link to a non-existent (now) article can later link that name to a completely different person; in the worst case a very nasty person. It doesn't "expand Wikipedia" to litter it with red links, it just confuses things. If you think any of these actors are notable, write the articles then link them. It's trivial to search WP to find unlinked names in the text of other articles if you do create a new bio article. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well lets go and remove every link from every page to anything that refers to a person then shall we. After all. They are personal names are they not? At the end of the day, you have not read that policy, or it's additional supporting guidelines correctly. Not something I would expect an IP to do. You have competently misinterpreted a single part of a policy. Personal names refer to non notables. It is standard interpretation of the policy. Not my fault that being an IP editor you haven't, understandably, taken the time to read the entire policy as well as it's additional guidelines. But when a more experienced active editor comes along who has, you should accept that and move on. It is unreasonable to expect an editor create stub pages (which guidelines, if you bothered to read them, tell you not to do) for 7 people just because. That is the job of the community as a whole. When a link becomes active, other editors will look, and see if it is the same person, if it's not, then it will be removed/disambiguated. Point is, this is a developing project with hundreds of articles are being added every day with different editors full filling different roles because they have different specialisms. One of which is article creations. Disambiguation works when there are more than one of something. Yes there are two John Clark's. With two different pages. They would (if not disambiguated) link to a list. Which would then help the user move to the correct page. This would happen, until another editor noticed it and would then correct it. It's not the end of the world. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You think being an IP editor means I'm a WP virgin and can't read? I cited, linked and quoted the guideline, you just made up your own definition and reverted me, twice, against a clearly stated WP guideline. You state "Personal names refer to people who are un-notable" and you think this justifies ignoring the guideline. Where is this definition stated? And I never told you to "create a stub page". Those are even worse wastes of time than red links. But no matter superior you think you are to a clueless IP editor, WP:NOTRED unambiguously says you're wrong. If you think the guideline is wrong, then argue it on its page. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I never said that. I just pointed that you may not have taken the time to read all the policies and guidelines. Oh I have asked for a clearer definition because quite frankly, you are wrong. Each policy is ambiguous and can be interpreted in different ways. I believe that the way you have interpreted it is incorrect. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal name, by definition, is a name attached to a person. Any person. The WP:NOTRED guideline does NOT single out non-notable individuals. You said "When a link becomes active, other editors will look, and see if it is the same person, if it's not, then it will be removed/disambiguated." which is the problem here. NOTRED applies to ANY personal name because someone with a similar name might just happen to be, for example, a serial killer or something. Having redlinked names may cause more harm than good.

You are also misinterpreting the statement "when the name is reported in a context which might cause readers to hold a low or critical opinion of the named individual." First off, you forgot where it said "particularly," which means it should be applied in most cases, but especially the case where the context is negative. Second, this does NOT mean just biographies. It means literally anywhere on Wikipedia. I don't understand how you can jump to that conclusion.

Also, it's very illogical of you to say that 202 is wrong while stating that policies are ambiguous. First, if they are ambiguous, then neither interpretation is wrong. Second, this is a guideline, not a policy, and guidelines are discussed in this manner on the talk page to reach consensus. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You say I "may not have taken the time to read the guidelines" when I obviously have, since I actually quoted them here. You keep just stating that I'm wrong without any recourse to the written policies. I've asked you twice for the origin of this definition of "personal name" you claimed allowed you to revert my edits, twice, in contravention of this guideline. Where does it come from? Since you keep avoiding responding to this while spending most of your post disparaging my knowledge I can only assume you made it up. And where is the "ambiguity" in "Red links to personal names should be avoided"? There is none. It applies to all "persons". There are no exclusions for actors.

I see you have raised this at Wikipedia talk:Red link#.22Personal_Name.22 and not managed to convince anyone there of your view that this rule doesn't apply to actors. And I think that the respondents there probably have "read all the policies and guidelines". 202.81.243.184 (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. It's in really bad form to start a guideline discussion without notifying 202 and I. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Two discussions now. Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse#Red_Link, since no one at Wikipedia talk:Red link bought the "actors aren't persons" line. If all this energy had been spent on researching articles for these highly notable actors, it'd be a non-issue.202.81.243.184 (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

WOW! This escalated quickly. I think 202 IP you need to watch your tone. Just because you are correct, that doesnt mean you get to be all superior and disrespect another editor who by the looks of things is well established and respected within the community.e, Although MisterShiney's behaviour and tone is far from perfect. MisterShiney's comments on other pages are not forum shopping, but an attempt for better clarification on the subject - something other editors are well within their perview to do and it is not his obligation to inform you of the subject, especially when you have already made your interpretations clear. On subject, I believe MisterShiney has misinterpreted the policy also, but I can see how the confusion arose and I myself also made the same misunderstanding. --91.194.220.54 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

MisterShiney made disrespectful and dismissive remarks about me. I don't owe him any deference if he's nice in other venues; here, with me, he wasn't. I cited the policy in my edit comments, he just reverted them, twice, without any justification and didn't bother to respond here till another editor noticed. And really, he got a several comprehensive responses from involved editors at Wikipedia talk:Red link (asking there is appropriate, but not notifying anyone here is sneaky), but he didn't like the answers so he went to the Teahouse. If that isn't forum shopping I don't know what is. But I'd rather not make it personal. Just discuss the issue without saying how clueless or respected each party may be. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Folks, Sorry for the delayed reply. It has been a busy couple of days. First off, 202, you really need to remember to assume good faith (as do I on occasions). If you look at the timings on the edits on WP:RED and on the Teahouse, you will see that in the space of an hour only one editor had responded to the WP:RED and so I started a Teahouse section. Assuming that I was not happy with a response that I got and went running to other editors is assuming bad faith when quite clearly all you have to do is look at the history and you will see that not many people had responded. All I was doing was asking for other "more" experienced editors to provide an opinion on what was being discussed. It was not an Admin discussion/request for mediation or any other post that would require me to inform you of the discussions. You provided your interpretations (which was great, and as it turns out pretty spot on) and all I wanted was hear other editors views/interpretations on the guidelines, and as it turns out has actually raised an issue that some editors feel needs to be addressed by the looks of things. But I was under no obligation to tell you. My justification for the revert is from the same guideline you quoted, although a different section, and that is quite frankly red links help to grow Wikipedia. Yes I was pretty dismissive, because lets face it, when an IP editor with few edits (you may really want to create an account) comes along and removes what I feel is a justified link, it reeks of foul play (yes I too must remember to assume good faith). But, having heard other editors interpretations of said policies, I can see that I was wrong, and knowing when to hold up my hands and admit I was wrong, I do so and apologise. I am all for Red links and strongly believe that they grow Wikipedia and that they are invaluable. I would create articles, but that is not where my strengths lay, but I can contribute by protecting articles and by doing the small stuff. But anyway, I can see that I was wrong, and apologise for being short with you. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I assumed good faith initially, though it was hard to maintain. "when an IP editor with few edits (you may really want to create an account) comes along and removes what I feel is a justified link, it reeks of foul play": I wrote a careful edit summary linking to the policy that justified my edits, then expanded on it here, so that it clearly wasn't "foul play". That didn't give you pause though until Mr Gerber stepped in. Anyway, I did have a named account and used it for several years and thousands of edits. But while it gave me some protection from being summarily reverted, it made me a target for being stalked and harassed by vindictive obsessives and dealing with that crap took up more and more of my time. (I was never blocked in case you suspect this is block evasion.) Now I just make my edits and say what I think. If someone doesn't like it, I'll have a new IP in a few days and can forget them. I've had to abandon several articles I nurtured for years, but the real world is more important. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

@202, that's why I have an IP account as well. Under my username, another editor started to shadow me and challenge even minor edits I was making. I don't like being a number rather than a name but it's not worth the hassle of other editors personalizing your editing decisions and making them about "you", rather than about the content. I'd rather be anonymous and work on improving Wikipedia than wasting time repeatedly defending every typo or grammar correction I make. That's just unproductive and tedious. That said, if someone asks me about an edit, I'm happy to respond...but now I know it's about the content and policy, not because someone else dislikes me. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Episode split

I restored the unnecessary split of episode list -- with it the article is 25 kB, well below WP:TOOBIG. There would need to be a lot more text to justify a split. The split was made with no edit comment at all. I won't edit war if (when) the split is reinstated, but others may weigh in here if they care. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Episode titles

I added a note on the sources of the episode titles -- they're all from On the Origin of Species. This is easily verified, e.g. Project Gutenberg, but pedants may consider it original research. Here's the full list:

1 : "Natural Selection": CHAPTER 4. NATURAL SELECTION

2 : "Instinct": CHAPTER 7. INSTINCT.

3 : "Variation Under Nature": CHAPTER 2. VARIATION UNDER NATURE.

4 : "Effects of External Conditions (Chapter 5, 1st subhead)

5 : "Conditions of Existence (Chapter 6, last subhead)

6 : "Variations Under Domestication": CHAPTER 1. VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION.

7 : "Parts Developed in an Unusual Manner (In Chapter 5)

8 : "Entangled Bank": (In Chapter 14)

9 : "Unconscious Selection": (Subhead, Chapter 1)

10 : "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" (Final sentence of book, also title of book on "evo devo")

202.81.243.184 (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This seems really quite interesting to me! 69.125.134.86 (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

NYPD mugs

A review states that NYPD coffee mugs can be seen in a few scenes. They actually just say Police Department. clearest shot I saw was in ep 3 about 15 minutes in http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/837/aez5.png/ 69.196.147.220 (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Additions?

As someone who has only watched a few episodes of the show, there are elements of this article that are very confusing to me. Who are the Prolethians? Who or what is Neolution? And, who is Tomas?

I am NOT expecting to read storyline recaps here and I understand that this is not the purpose of articles here at Wikipedia. But all three of these seemingly important entities are mentioned without any description of who or what they are. Just a sentence or two on each would really help! Thanks. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Source for "Status" section?

I wanted to inquire what the source of the date of death was for the "status" section particularly I'm not necessarily sure that information is vital to this page.Jonthecheet (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It's from Cosima's chart in the episode "Entangled Bank". Here's a screencap for reference. Drovethrughosts (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Felix Spelling

In this article Felix is referred to as being shortened to 'Fee'; however, BBC subtitles has it spelt as 'Fe'. I feel that this should be changed.--Aquakeeper14 (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)