Talk:Orphan Black

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removing all mention of clones[edit]

I don't understand 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)

Not that person, but I agree. It's not like I don't expect spoilers to be on Wikipedia, I just don't expect them to be on the first line of the page. I mean, I had no idea it was clones, I went on Wikipedia to see where the show was from. No spoilers should be in the first section of a Wikipedia page (and this is the first time I've ever seen any). --131.175.28.142 (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, same here, major plot point just absolutely ruined in the first sentence, and all I really wanted to find out was the filming location. Would one start an article on The Sixth Sense with: "TSS is a 1999 film in which the protagonist is revealed to be a ghost?" This is really not well written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.164.174 (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect logic. The reveal in The Sixth Sense is a twist at the very end of the movie, while the issue of cloning is revealed with the inciting incident at the beginning of the pilot. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost. If you just wanted spoiler free location info, you could have gotten it from IMDB, where the production details are sectioned off. With Wikipedia's real time editing, once it happens, it happens, spoilers be damned. Read at your own risk. MMetro (talk) 08:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Science Errors[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)
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? [1]
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. [2] — 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)
Having read the WP:SYNTHESIS page and pages linked from it, I think the application of the policy in this case is absurd. This is not a grey area of politics or subjective opinion where we need to be mindful of neutrality and bias---it is an utterly uncontroversial and plain reading of flat scientific fact: Clones and twins do not have similar fingerprints, period. If Orphan Black had instead rested the premise of an episode on a statement like "the force of gravity pushes people away from the Earth", is it honestly Wikipedia's policy to prohibit citing and mentioning the truth simply because it represents a contradiction and, thus, implies a "synthesis" that the show's science regarding gravity is dubious? Eunomiac (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The difference between "Orphan Black" and your typical howler-ridden science fantasy series is that this BBC-America production represents itself as having an educative function. This is done rather cleverly by blurring the lines between personal friend/development participant, character within the show, science advisor to the scriptwriters, press liaison, and independent expert. Thus the academic credentials of a character are unconsciously or consciously imputed to the "original" of the character by the generality of the press and the public at large whatever the actual credentials of the original may be. This is the only way human cloning actually works in the real world: by creating a fictional version of a living person. This is not "how science is done", it is how PR is done and this makes it all the more imperative that a genuine, credentialed, professional in the biological sciences step up to critique "the science of Orphan Black". The cloned elephant in the room is of course the fact that interminable discussion of the possibility of human cloning in the near future misses the point that for the premise of the show to work, human cloning would have had to have been acheived, in secrecy, over thirty years ago. This is not "how science works". Secrecy strangles science. This is why the secretive, non-collaborative Robert Goddard failed while the collaborative-to-a-fault Werner von Braun succeeded. To state as a premise that a secret human cloning project in 1984 is like saying that von Braun and the Wehrmacht could have launched a succesful manned Mars expedition in 1939. I have no objection to people enjoying their fantasies here as long as Wikipedia takes seriously its duty to inform the public, to solicit genuine experts to make clear the difference between science and fantasy, and to resist the tendency for its pages to function as facilitators of the goals of the producers of mass-market entertainments and their uncritical fan bases. Is the goal of Wikipedia to inform the public or to cheer on its editors' prefernces in televised fiction? The response to this post will provide an answer that question.68.178.50.46 (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Copyvio Episode Summaries[edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)
MrShiney is being a douche, no matter how "respected" he is by the Aspergers riddled freaks that control Wikipedia. He is flat out wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.166.157 (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2014 (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)
It would be interesting to know what percentage of experienced WP editors are mostly working IP for those reasons.-71.174.188.43 (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Red links should be avoided at all costs no matter what. Encmetalhead (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Episode split[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)

BBC America financed[edit]

Someone keeps removing the 'British' and made it 'Canadian' only which is very unfair as BBC America ordered and financed the show. Originally the article had it laid out correctly but some editor has tried to make the show a purely Canadian affair when it was the Brits who ordered and paid for development and production. Whenever a network finances a show wiki articles always have it listed in the first paragraph as a co-production. All corporate media websites refer to BBC America as renewing Orphan Black so please give credit where it is due. 81.110.28.183 (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not British, it's American. It's co-produced by BBC America, not simply the BBC. That's why it airs in Canada and the U.S. at the same time, and not in the UK. Most corporate websites will say BBC America renewed the show, because they're American websites, it's just how it's done. While if you look here, it says Space. They both renewed the show because they both produce it. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
With respect BBC America is a subsidiary of the BBC, the BBC network is the largest broadcaster in the world and is not like other national networks, they often produce and finance television along with digital content outside of the UK occasionally with partners but more often than not alone, essentially the broadcaster promotes British culture to a worldwide audience much like the British Council. Twobells (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
But then why wouldn't it originally air on BBC in the UK then? The UK didn't get it until months after it premiered here. It's co-financed by BBC America. Every company is a subsidiary of another, something produced by Sony Pictures Television isn't Japanese just because that's a subsidiary of Sony. You need to provide a source that explicitly states this is of British origin (we already know it's Canadian). This Digital Spy source, regarding it's BBC Three broadcast even states, "US import Orphan Black" and "from BBC America in the US". Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
It's filmed in Canadian so it's a Canadian show that is co-produced by channels in the US and Canada. Encmetalhead (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Filming location is irrelevant for the nationality of a film or TV series. Is Star Wars Tunisian, Empire Strikes Back Norwegian? Similarly with financing. These things are classified by the nationality of the production company(s). Orphan Black is produced by Temple Street in conjunction with Bell Media (see the credits) and is thus Canadian. BBC America bought the show, they didn't produce it. Even their own announcement statement states this "The series is brought to BBCA by independent producer, Temple Street Productions". Canterbury Tail talk 14:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
One more time, SOURCE The Peabody Award winning series is produced by Temple Street Productions in association with BBC AMERICA and finally Bell Media. Its a joint British- Canadian show and no amount of sophistry will change that. Twobells (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
"One more time," Orphan Black is produced by Temple Street---a Canadian company. Its association with BBC America is purely financial: BBC America has neither creative input nor control. With regard to the cultural origins of a television production, the financiers are not as relevant as the producers. BBC America does not produce Orphan Black, Temple Street does. The writers, directors, actors and producers are all Canadian. The sets: Canadian. The on-set employees: Canadian. The extras: Canadian. Everyone involved with the creation of this show: Canadian. No amount of "sophistry" will convert Orphan Black into something other than a Canadian show that other countries have financed, purchased, and aired. Eunomiac (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

New S2 Clone, should we add?[edit]

This was just released: http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/03/13/orphan-black-new-clone-jennifer-fitzsimmons/

What is the spoiler policy for something like this? 23.29.211.106 (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

BBC America/Bell Media as producers[edit]

Is Orphan Black not produced by BBC America (and Bell Media)? Just think it should be made clear before removing again. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The end credits list "Produced and developed in association with Bell Media." BBC America Original Productions is a logo at the end of the credits, but it isn't given any production mention in the actual credits. Note, this is the Canada broadcast credits, it is possible, though incredibly unlikely, that the US credits are different but I would find that odd if it was as the credits are what are officially logged for a film/production. Canterbury Tail talk 01:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Also IMDB (not always considered reliable) list just Temple Street Productions as the production company, BBC America as distributors which they would be as they paid to distribute it in the US. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that they had a real hand in actually producing the show itself and even BBC America's aquirement announcement (see reference #5), states "The series is brought to BBCA by independent producer, Temple Street Productions". Canterbury Tail talk 01:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
One more time, SOURCE The Peabody Award winning series is produced by Temple Street Productions in association with BBC AMERICA and Bell Media. Its a joint British- Canadian show. As for the credits, that is a national broadcasting issue, each region displays the credits accordingly, for example in Europe BBC America is listed primarily as the producver followed by Temple Street. Twobells (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
"One more time," Orphan Black is produced by Temple Street---a Canadian company. Its association with BBC America is purely financial: BBC America has neither creative input nor control. With regard to the cultural origins of a television production, the financiers are not as relevant as the producers. BBC America does not produce Orphan Black, Temple Street does. The writers, directors, actors and producers are all Canadian. The sets: Canadian. The on-set employees: Canadian. The extras: Canadian. Everyone involved with the creation of this show: Canadian. No amount of "sophistry" will convert Orphan Black into something other than a Canadian show that other countries have financed, purchased, and aired. Eunomiac (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The Title[edit]

Where the name Orphan Black came from definitely would be of interest to the article. Does a source clarify? In "Entangled Bank", Mrs. S. mentions how undocumented ("black" in British slang, not a reference to race) children entering the foster care system were rumored to have been subjects of medical experiments. Prior to that, several references are made to Sarah being an orphan. However, without additional citation, it's WP:SYNTHESIS. MMetro (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Episode lists[edit]

As with other similar pages, episode should be listed on the main page for the TV show without episode summaries. CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Episode lists[edit]

As with other similar pages, would be nice if episodes were listed on the main page for the TV show without episode summaries. CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

BBC America Owned[edit]

The show is BBC America owned, (see here) any country, network, streaming service or station has to obtain a content licencing agreement worldwide from BBC America, not from Space or Temple Productions. If you check any tv or film wiki article the show is always listed by the country who financed it, I suggest that at the very least that the lede states 'BBC America-Space' co-production allowing visitors to mouse to the networks concerned which shows their country of origin as stating that it is purely a 'Canadian' show is factually incorrect. Here are two examples of joint co-productions on WIkipedia. Stargate Atlantis Primeval_New_World Twobells (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Calling it British is false, there's no evidence of that. It would have to be produced by BBC to be that. I copyedited the lead a bit, as "...is a BBC America-Space science fiction television series" is a bit odd wording as it should read the nationality/country of origin there. I simply rewrote it to, "The series is produced by Temple Street Productions in association with BBC America and Bell Media's Space." which is exactly how the press release states it. Regarding the content licencing agreement, that's because it's distributed internationally by BBC Worldwide North America (also from press release you linked); distribution is different than producing or financing. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It IS produced by the BBC using the US off-shoot BBC America which is a commercial arm of the BRITISH BBC, every trade publication calls it a 'BBC America production', they paid for the show so it is theirs. When you buy something who does it belong to? The person who paid for it of course. Temple Street productions is listed as the company that co-produced it but they SOLD it to BBC America who paid for it.Twobells (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The credits for the show don't bear that out. BBC Worldwide North America only has the distribution rights, this has nothing to do with owning the show. This does not make it a BBC America show, especially when BBC America themselves have stated that they buy it from Temple Street and don't make it themselves. Additionally financing has nothing to do with the nationality of a show or movie, a lot of movie financing comes from Germany due to tax regulations for investment but you never see the latest Hollywood blockbuster being labelled a German film. Shows, like movies, are nationality based on their production company. Whoever makes the show is the nationality, not who owns distribution rights. Incidentally the article quoted only covers the US as you can happily stream the show in many other countries, Canada, UK, other European countries which have nothing to do with Amazon Prime Instant Video, a US only service. Again BBC North America is solely a distributor, which has nothing to do with ownership. Canterbury Tail talk 22:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean 'only distribution rights'? BBC America PAID for the show through the BBC, they financed it entirely and certainly not to raise money via taxation which would be against the BBC's national, international and commercial arm charter, the reality is that in this case the show is a BBC-America financed Canadian co-production and no amount of suspect sophistry will change that. Twobells (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Correction: Orphan Black is a BBC-America financed 'Canadian production'---and no amount of suspect sophistry will change that. If you cannot understand this distinction, then it is no surprise to me why you find it so strange that this show is described, in cultural---not financial---terms as "Canadian". Eunomiac (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably best to keep this discussion in one spot, as now there's currently three different sections discussing the same issue. I think you mean every American trade publication, if you look at Canadian websites, they refer it as "Space's Orphan Black" or Temple Street Productions. The series is produced by Temple Street in association with BBC America and Bell Media (the exact press release wording). Obviously that means Temple Street is the primary producer. The press release states, "BBC Worldwide distributes the series internationally." Says nothing regarding producing or financing. If you want to add BBC America and Bell Media as producers to the infobox, sure; even if you want to call it American-Canadian, sure... But calling it British is false, because it's not; it's co-produced by BBC America (not BBC). Simple as that. Find a source that explicitly states Orphan Black is a British series or that BBC America completely fiances the series. From an earlier comment I made, I found a British source that refers to the series as a "US import". Here's a great (American publication) source detailing its development. For one, the article refers to it a Canadian series. Bell Media was the company that greenlighted the series, BBC America stepped in several weeks later for U.S. broadcasting rights. How does that make it a British series in anyway I ask? Its country of origin is solely Canada because it was developed and created by Canadians from a Canadian production company that was greenlighted for production by a Canadian broadcaster. I feel the wording in the lead, "The series is produced by Temple Street Productions in association with BBC America and Bell Media's Space" is suffice enough regarding this issue. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The University of Alberta finally confirmed the facts, OB is entirely financed by the British-owned BBC America and Space only jumped on board once financing was found; "It was only after BBC America, in search of original programming, agreed to an acquisition agreement that Orphan Black was able to find its way home. Once BBC Worldwide (the commercial arm of the British public service broadcaster) guaranteed financing and international distribution, Space’s parent company Bell Media moved quickly to purchase the series.5 (from BBC Worldwide) Orphan Black eventually debuted in March 2013 with 513,000 viewers, making it the highest-rated original series premiere for Space.6 Its simultaneous launch on BBC America garnered 680,000 viewers.7" http://www.mediaindustriesjournal.org/index.php/mij/article/view/106/151. For anyone who is interested BBC_Worldwide is British and in fact according to many other wiki tv production articles you could say that OB is entirely British as editors here have argued on many an occasion that production location has nothing to do with ownership but for the sake of neutrality I have edited the lede to read 'British-Canadian'. Also, for anyone interested in international tv productions 57% of ALL Canadian tv production are financed by the UK. Twobellst@lk 09:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I read the source, and I see phrases such as "the Canadian series Orphan Black", "Although Orphan Black is not 'British'", and "The series is not a treaty coproduction (it is completely written and produced in Toronto), nor does it fall under the very productive category that Michele Hilmes identifies as transnational coproduction, where 'national interests must be combined and reconciled'." Yeah, we know, it's co-funded by BBC America. How does that make it British. Please stop pushing your Brit POV. (New) Doctor Who was partially co-founded by CBC, but you sure would not argue that it's "British-Canadian". Orphan Black is not "British-Canadian", if anything, it's "Canadian-American". The production company is Temple Street Productions, a Canadian company. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Funding is irrelevant. For decades most movie funding came from German investors due to taxation laws, but few movies are German. The nationality of a TV show or Movie is recognised as being the nationality of the production company that actually makes it, not who funds it or greenlights it, but who actually makes it. Note this isn't who stars in it, where it is filmed, who wrote it etc, but who actually makes the show. In this case the show is made solely by Temple Street Productions, a Canadian company. No one else is involved in the production of the show. Canterbury Tail talk 14:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Orphan Black Concept/Premise/Overview section edits[edit]

Flyer22,

Please take advantage of the Talk function to defend your reversion to an older, less clear version of this section. Please be specific about what you find objectionable. Merely citing style sheets and the like is not very informative. Citations like these hinder discussion. Bold edits, of which I do not include my latest, need not be defended against empty criticism. It can be defended against authentic or meaningful criticism. I cannot read your mind; I do not want to read your mind; I am not obligated to read your mind. Therefore, make your case for your reversion and I will respond.

--s.zielinski 16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

S.zielinski (talk · contribs), you should sign your username with a signature that is clickable.
As for the matter at hand (including reverting you), here are all the edits in question:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. It's not a matter of having you read my mind; it's a matter of having you read the policy on plot summaries (WP:PLOT) and the guideline on television plot summaries (WP:TVPLOT) and having you follow that policy and that guideline. Your Overview section violates what those pages state. Furthermore, per WP:Lead, the lead is the overview. Merely citing policies and/or guidelines, or "style sheets," as you call them, is very informative; citing them saves editors time from having to explain. Those pages are there to explain for us. Flyer22 (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22 (talk · contribs)
You have failed to provide me with useful information. My overview does not violate what those pages state. Your explanation of my mistakes is vacuous. Citing style sheets is not informative. I do not want to save you time. You need to do some work -- i.e. explain your dubious actions.
Right now, I consider your revision to be malicious in intent.
S.zielinski (talk) s.zielinski 16:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
S.zielinski, do you not see what WP:PLOT states? Do you not see what WP:TVPLOT states? How is it that you cannot read that policy and that guideline and see that your Overview section is a violation of what those pages state? How is it that you cannot see that titling the section "Overview" as though it is an overview of the entire article conflicts with WP:Lead? I already told you that the lead is the overview (WP:Lead makes that explicitly clear). Your Overview section is simply an overview of the plot material. How is it that you require me to state parts of the aforementioned plot policy or plot guideline for you to understand them? I take it that all of this is because you are a WP:Newbie (despite your S.zielinski account being registered on June 30, 2007, you have edited Wikipedia very little thus far, at least under your S.zielinski account). WP:TVPLOT states, "For articles on the main work, this section should be brief, only discussing the important plot elements for each season (though, if the article is becoming long it may be best to trim it to over-arching plots for the entire series) that steered the course of characters lives, or the course of the show." In other words, shorter is usually better. Look at the examples of plot length that WP:TVPLOT gives. By Wikipedia standards, your plot summary length is clearly less desirable than the Premise plot summary length.
As for the rest of what you stated: I am a very experienced Wikipedia editor. You are a WP:Newbie. I know what I am talking about when it comes to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. There is no vacuousness, dubiousness or malicious intent in following those policies and guidelines, as applied to this case or any other Wikipedia case that concerns those matters. If you think that I'm wrong, which you do, then ask about this matter at WP:TV and see the response you get there. Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
To make it even clearer to you: Your plot section should summarize season 1 in one paragraph, and then season 2 in one paragraph. And I mean decent-sized paragraphs. Not huge paragraphs. The standard practice for an article about a series is to either have a short premise section while pointing readers to the article about the episodes and/or the seasons with a link, or to briefly summarize the seasons while pointing readers to the article about the episodes and/or the seasons with a link. And while television articles sometimes title the plot section "Overview" or "Series overview," it is better to simply title it "Plot" if the section goes beyond the premise. See Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama#Television for examples, granted the 30 Rock article deviates from the typical style. See the WP:Good article Smallville that currently uses an "overview" heading (titled Series overview), but summarizes all ten seasons in one paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Setting?[edit]

Does the programme ever say where it's taking place?
It mentions real Toronto neighbourhoods: Parkdale, the Junction, Scarborough (Scarberia). A Toronto area code is seen (647).
But the frequent shots of the downtown skyline carefully avoid the CN Tower.
And the police dept. has "precincts" and "lootenants", so it isn't Toronto.
142.204.141.222 (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"Anycity, North America" Encmetalhead (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Pearson has appeared on airplane tickets, Ontario license plates (though in Season 2 the province markers are removed), Canada Post vans in the background etc. However in the final episode we have people in uniforms clearly labelled as US Army wandering around in and around the city so it seems that it's meant to be the US, but unless a reliable source comes up it's original research though that's the strongest suggestion we've gotten yet. Canterbury Tail talk 23:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a source, but I distinctly recall "Anycity, North America" coming from the mouths of the producers---I also recall "Generica" being mentioned. In Season One, the setting was clearly Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ticket stubs specifically mention Pearson Airport; cars sported Ontario license plates; and Canadian bills were clearly used (e.g. the large cash withdrawal made by Sarah from Beth's bank account). Since then, they've been very careful to avoid showing anything that would suggest a specific country setting---cash has been carefully occluded from the viewer in many scenes, which is quite telling considering how immediately distinguishable American, Canadian and European bills are from each other. Eunomiac (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Cosima as lesbian or bisexual[edit]

There has been a lot of WP:Edit warring over listing Cosima as lesbian or bisexual; finally, an IP added an AfterEllen.com reference (this reference) where the actress portraying Cosima (Tatiana Maslany) states that she thinks that Cosima is bisexual and that Cosima was stated as bisexual to her by the show's creators. Even with that source, I don't see how it is needed to state that Cosima is bisexual, especially since, like others have made clear during the edit warring, Cosima has so far indicated that she is a lesbian and not into men sexually, not only by words but by actions. Therefore, the bisexual listing seems misleading to me, almost like it is WP:Original research (notice that I stated "almost"). As someone with a great understanding of sexuality and who edits Wikipedia sexuality articles, I know that one does not have to act on their sexual attraction to be one sexual orientation or the other, and that sexual identity does not always align with sexual orientation or sexual behavior. But again, Cosima has yet to indicate that she is at all romantically/sexually interested in men. That AfterEllen.com interview is from May 2013; it's now June 2014. I suggest that we don't list her as lesbian or as bisexual until the show is even clearer about the matter, if it ever becomes clearer about it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Cosima self identifies on the show as gay, not bisexual, the character has never mentioned or implied in any way bisexuality. I'm in two minds as to whether the reference is reliable it was an old interview and there has been nothing in the show to support it or any mention in any other official medium. Canterbury Tail talk 01:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Totally agree with the above, I would say she's a lesbian on the basis of she had thing with Delphine but has never from what we've seen had any relationships with any men, If over the years we're wrong we can simply change it :) –Davey2010(talk) 02:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Flyer22. I think it's better to not label Cosima one way or the other at this point as it's rather misleading and the show has been intentionally vague about this point. Whatever the case, Cosima does not self identify on the show as being gay. There are characters that refer to her as being a lesbian but she never uses the word when referring to herself. In response to Rachel's statement of "So, you're gay." in "Governed By Sound Reason and True Religion" Cosima simply states, "My sexuality's not the most interesting thing about me." That isn't her agreeing or disagreeing with the statement. It's non-committal, and the show on the whole seems to be taking the same stance when she's concerned. It isn't labeling her. I think simply mentioning her relationship with Delphine is really all that's necessary at this point as that's all we know for certain. 66.243.201.18 (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with Flyer22. It seems more accurate just to say she's currently involved with a woman than to label her before she labels herself. It seems really misleading that she's currently described as bisexual but you have to click through the link to find out that the show itself has yet to directly address her sexuality.Jennadorf (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Jennadorf (talk · contribs) and others, since there is WP:Consensus on this matter, I suggest someone go ahead and change the wording/remove the source while citing this talk page discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Rachel Duncan's Birth Date[edit]

I noticed there is a birth date listed for the character of Rachel Duncan in the Known Clones section. There is no citation or source mentioned, and I am not aware of it ever being mentioned or revealed in the program. In the absence of a citation, I'd like to propose this be removed since I don't see how it can be correct. It looks like someone's best guess. Perhaps it could be changed from "March 17, 1984" to just "1984". EDIT: I've gone ahead and made the edit myself. If someone has a citation or source, I would hope they can restore the birthdate but include the citation. Truance (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Homeontherange[edit]

Is there a way we can get him/her banned from editing this article? Encmetalhead (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

He's been blocked. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Reception sections[edit]

All three sub-sections dealing with critical reception to the show need to be expanded. Orphan Black has received so much critical acclaim and that needs to be shown. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If you think the sections need to be expanded, then why not do it yourself. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Cast table[edit]

FWIW, I copied this out of Draft:Orphan. It was created by 83.36.213.85. wbm1058 (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Main cast[edit]

Character Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Sarah Manning 40
Elizabeth Childs 7
Cosima Niehaus 39
Alison Hendrix 33

Separate article for awards[edit]

The awards table is getting quite lengthy and not so easy to read, so I have started a separate article. When it is complete the table in the original article can be deleted. Kingstoken (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

How to handle "P.T. Westmorland AKA 'John'"?[edit]

Do we include most of the current bio as that of P.T. Westmorland even though he has not actually appeared onscreen and then add a new section for John just saying "Some guy pretending to be P.T. Westmorland? - Immigrant laborer (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)