Talk:List of Black Mirror episodes

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Chardetm (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite

reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

75.182.115.183, @Radiphus and Chairhandlers: I notice the three of you have been reverting based on whether the USS Callister should be called a "space ship" or a "Star Trek-esque ship". Personally, I have no strong feelings, but here are some thoughts:

• The article USS Callister clearly shows the ship is heavily similar Star Trek; people involved in the production (e.g. Brooker) have discussed this in interviews and critic after critic mentions this in their review.
• However, the article also cites Brooker's original influences as other works to Star Trek, and also compares the style to another (I understand similar) science fiction show, Battlestar Galactica.
• No other episode summaries mention inspirations for the episode, though many of their articles describe influences (perhaps none are as overt as this one though).
• The latter description is more detailed and only a couple of words longer, so could be seen as less vague while still being concise.

I suppose if asked to take a side, I would go with "Star Trek-esque ship", though I see pros and cons for each choice. Also, I think "spaceship" should be one word if that is chosen. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 04:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly sourced in USS Callister. Chairhandlers, please link a policy that forbids including sourced information in a plot summary. Radiphus, you said "the summary needs to be concise"; are you seriously questioning a difference of 22 characters? You also state, "not everyone knows about Star Trek"; that's why it's linked to Star Trek. We don't omit something on Wikipedia simply because everyone is not familiar with it. In fact, we should include information to inform readers who may not be familiar with information. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The plot summaries should be expanded to 200 words anyway and we should stop copy/pasting them from IMDb. I believe a reference to another franchise in a 30-word teaser summary is not encyclopedic. I will not be able to reply for the next hours. -- Radiphus 04:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones exactly are copied from IMDb? I can't see any. Is that not a serious copyvio breach? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The summaries were copied to this article from IMDb or some other TV guide on 17 December 2017. Some of them have been changed a little bit since then, but the fourth-series first, second and last episode summaries are almost exactly the same. Check the differences between that one and the current revision here. I don't know if IMDb content is licensed, but what troubles me as an editor and a reader is that they are all teasers. -- Radiphus 14:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Radiphus, even though "copying from IMDb" sidesteps the issue here (i.e., use of the Star Trek reference), I will respond to it. It is also frequently the case that someone at IMDb copies the summaries from Wikipedia. Anyone can write a plot summary at IMDb, just as anyone can write a summary here. Some IMDb content is managed by their editors (such as cast lists), but not plot summaries. Trust me, I've written some of their information myself. That is the case for the fourth season. I regularly check IMDb summaries for the very same reason. Those summaries were changed after the Wikipedia summaries were written. Now, regarding the Star Trek issue: you have not addressed the two issues I raised above. So here they are again: you said "the summary needs to be concise"; are you seriously questioning a difference of one word (the current summary is 40 words long, including names of actors)? You also state, "not everyone knows about Star Trek"; that's why it's linked to Star Trek. We don't omit something on Wikipedia simply because everyone is not familiar with it. In fact, we should include information to inform readers who may not be familiar with information. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As i said, a reference to another franchise in a 30-word teaser summary is not encyclopedic. Plot summaries should provide context for readers who have not seen the work, in accordance with

MOS:TVPLOT. Mentioning even more things readers may not know about (like me) is not providing them with information, it's giving them homework to do. If you want to mention Star Trek, you need to expand and explain how exactly USS Callister is reminiscent of Star Trek. What does "Star Trek-esque ship" mean? Are they similar in size or something? You need to provide context. -- Radiphus 17:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Disagree regarding "not encyclopedic" and "homework to do". Only readers who are interested in finding out more need to click the Star Trek link. This is simply a matter of writing style (

MOS:TVPLOT is a style guideline, not a policy), which in effect is a matter of opinion. Our opinions differ, so we need a consensus. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not just our opinions that differ. Your opinions contradict the site's very guidelines. Not only

MOS:LINKSTYLE also states Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so and Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. What information does the Star Trek reference in the plot summary provide to a reader that is not familiar with the franchise and how does it help them understand what the episode is about? Speaking as such a reader, i am telling you: absolutely nothing. If i hadn't watched the episode, i would have no way to know whether the summary is talking about a spaceship or a seagoing vessel. -- Radiphus 18:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

What information does the Star Trek reference provide to those not familiar with Star Trek? It provides a link to those who want to know. And for those who know about Star Trek, it provides considerable information. For one extra word in the plot summary that everyone is free to ignore, that's a bargain. You're "straining at a gnat" to blindly follow a non-mandatory guideline simply because

that's the way you like it. Once again, it's a guideline. It's not carved in stone. Your opinion alone here does not prevail. We don't need to argue this point endlessly with the same arguments. We need a consensus. You may not like that, but that's how Wikipedia works. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

That's the way i like it? You are the one edit-warring (

WP:EDITCONSENSUS? That's the way wikipedia works. Not by discrediting the guidelines and looking for other ways to overturn an existing consensus. -- Radiphus 19:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Please try and be more polite in the future and comment on the arguements i have put forward,

not on the contributor. -- Radiphus 19:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I won't bother to deny that I have been uncivil and ask you to make a report to

WP:ANI if you truly think I have, because I'm sure it would be pointless, but I would ask you to do the same thing. I have commented (numerous times) on your arguments. So please wait to see if others have opinions before repeating your arguments. Thanks. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

How am i repeating myself? In my first post i mentioned copyvio issues, in my second post i said that the Star Trek reference does not provide any context to the reader and in my third message (the last one before you started being impolite) i talked about link-chasing, using WP guidelines to support my arguements. If you need to be told by an administrator to be polite there is not much to do. -- Radiphus 20:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your points; I've made my points. Please wait to see if anyone else supports your argument. Since you don't seem to get the point: if you think I have been uncivil, by all means make a report it at

WP:BOOMERANG. Now, you and I are finished here. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Once again, please stop being impolite. -- Radiphus 20:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please report me at

WP:ANI if you think I have been impolite. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay right, that's enough bickering. Neither of you have assumed good faith of the other but nor is it severe enough to take anyone to ANI. Radiphus: your copyvio concern has been debunked; your claims of existing consensus are false and I don't believe Star Trek is not a "highly technical term" – it is a huge pop culture phenomenon who the majority of readers will understand the genre of, even if they haven't seen a single episode (that describes me, for instance). I suggest the compromise "Star Trek-esque spaceship" to allay your valid concern of the sea vessel vs. spaceship ambiguity.

Your "teaser" concerns rather go against our previous discussion at Talk:Shut Up and Dance (Black Mirror)#Spoilers – something I still don't agree on, but we have a consensus there to describe the premise and beginning of the episode rather than the entirety of it. It's a different context here, but I don't see why the same reasoning wouldn't apply.

Guidelines set an upper limit of 200 words for episode summaries in these types of articles, so we need not reach that, but I think it shows that these 1–2 sentence summaries are too little. I think some of the time spent crafting responses in this discussion would have been better expanding the summaries; we could perhaps copy and paste the summaries in the lead of each episode article (

Thanks for your well thought out comments, Bilorv. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: Regarding the copyvio concerns, i am pinging Voicebox64, the user who supposedly wrote these summaries. Also, i didn't say the consensus can not change, but it should be based on arguements. All the IP was doing is descrediting the guidelines, so there is nothing to argue about. I am happy to discuss about anything, as i have done many times before, to find a middle-ground solution. In Shut Up and Dance i wrote I would leave out the part about the "fight to the death", which does not serve as an introduction to the episode and could be considered a teaser. How does it go against to what i am saying here? The "Star Trek-esque spaceship" would be an improvement for now, and copying parts of the lead sections might be a good start, but they would probably need to be expanded as they do not summarize the overall storyline. -- Radiphus 21:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did a lot more than "discredit the guidelines". I provided a rational explanation for why the guidelines alone are not sufficient to have a knee-jerk reaction to remove one word that can be very informative to a vast majority of readers and be of no harm to other readers. But I will not repeat my arguments in detail again as they are explained quite fully above, and I'll ask others not to repeat their arguments. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP feel free to repeat just one arguement you have made based on wikipedia standards. -- Radiphus 21:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who can read English at the sixth grade level can understand all the points I have made above. As Bilorv has rightly noted above, we don't need any more bickering by making the same points over and over again. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those sixth grade level and you don't seem to get the point really prove you've stopped the bickering. -- Radiphus 21:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop personalizing this discussion and trying to provoke an argument, because I'm not taking the bait. If Bilorv or any other editor needs an explanation, I'll be happy to explain further. You and I are finished discussing. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Hang the DJ" summary is completely wrong. They don't have a "Relationship" per se: Some encounters can last only minutes. It's not an app, and it's a lot more than dating, and the subject of the summary makes the whole thing off as the time is how long they are forced to spend together, to gauge their reactions. The electronic coach collects info to determine their ideal life partner. Trailer link. 50.70.234.111 (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, I can't believe my edit was reverted after such a thorough explanation and reference was given, can someone address this editors possessiveness of this article?? 50.70.234.111 (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You jumped the gun. The usual procedure is to start a discussion and wait for others, and only if no consensus develops should you start an RfC. Did you bother to read

WP:RFC#Before starting the process? 75.182.115.183 (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Indeed, an RfC is simply not appropriate here. I've removed the template.

I agree with 50.70.234.111 that their explanation was better, and disagree with Chairhandlers that consensus to change it was necessary, since we never had consensus for / a discussion about the original summary anyway. But this is all academic, as the summaries should be expanded significantly to about 200 words. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 11:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know that the tables used in most of this article are not accessible on mobile mode. There isn't any critical need to use tables to present each episode, so it would be nice if this presentation was modified.--Kimdime (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

MOS:TV#Episode listing. - Radiphus (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Radiphus. Neither on the browser (with Wikimedia mobile selected), nor on the Wikipedia app can I see the page properly because of the tables. I use an android smartphone and google chrome as browser, here you'll find a screenshot of what I see : [1]--Kimdime (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response. The idea is that mobile readers will read the article in "landscape" orientation. That's the way to read almost every table on Wikipedia. This issue significantly affects

WikiProject Television, so i believe it would be better to discuss about it over there. - Radiphus (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Just to say, Wikipedia seems to assume that anyone looking at one of these tables wants it to be shown with at least 77 characters or so across in addition to Wikipedia's decorations. I don't know how widespread this assumption is (is it due to the table layout here or are all tables like this? is this layout used in the same way in other articles?), but I would not like to read this article on my phone in either orientation. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoeuidhtns: Yes, the episode tables are used in the same way in season articles or "list of episodes" pages, and this is why it would be more appropriate to discuss about this issue at WikiProject Television. - Radiphus (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's called an interactive film on its standalone page as well: Black Mirror: Bandersnatch. And besides: It's not really a conventional "film" by most people's linear standards of expectation from "film."

I know we're probably waiting for the eps to air or get more details before making them (I've seeded all as redirects), but here's one source for the promo posters that can be used for infobox once reduced in size. [2]. --Masem (t) 15:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

where'd the WEBISODES section go?! main article LINKS to it, but link now dead!

names of those eps (4 polish; 3 spanish) + recaps & release dates need to be in one article or the other. i'd vote for HERE.

polish ones, at least, USED to be here..... 173.9.95.217 (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning to nominate this article for

Finally got around to this, and nominated here. All comments welcome. — Bilorv (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided the relevant reasoning on why this article does not display the correct usage of the viewers graph template. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

MOS:TV are you referring to? Can you quote it to me? I'm not seeing anything in the template documentation either. How can I see what the decisions were on "when [ratings graphs] should and should not be used"? — Bilorv (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not sure what exact part Alex 21 is referring to here either. Clarification would be helpful here, I do not see anything that incorrect in my view in its current usage here, the table is perfectly fine as well.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm re-adding it soon if there's no explanation. — Bilorv (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Bilorv: related as I was doing some small adjustments on some of the episode articles (after developing a slight interest in the show), including ratings, but I cannot find anything in the source about 0.87 million for "The Entire History of You". On the BARB website for December 2011, for the week 12 Dec - 18 Dec (episode aired on 18 Dec) no mention of Black Mirror (the list's lowest entry for the period was 1.53 million). Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this data is from one of BARB's paid features, which would give breakdowns for much more than just the top 30 (for every programme that week, I think). So the reference link isn't quite right, but I can't give a better one as I don't have a subscription to BARB (I think only companies would fine it worthwhile). Sometimes in this case I've seen "N/A (<1.53 million)", but I've no reason to disbelieve whoever added 0.87 million and credited BARB. What do you think? — Bilorv (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:SOURCEACCESS, but we do need to reference where it came from. I do not know how BARB's paid features works; if we can find said URL we could reference that although for all I know it may just a PDF sent via email to paying customers. Do you know how BARB's paid features work? "N/A (<1.53 million)" seems like a good short-term solution until resolved (I will also note the "The Entire History of You" page makes no mention of viewer ratings). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Alright, rating table's back and "N/A (<1.53 million)" instated for the time being. Yes, the problem is not that a paywall is inherently disqualifying, but that concretely we're going to struggle to find anyone who can see behind it. I imagine that it would be hosted on their website in a paywalled PDF rather than being via email but your guess is as good as mine. — Bilorv (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great thanks for adjusting, I might see if I have the time to ask at WP:TV to see if we have any solution to this problem when a programme does not reach the Top 30 on BARB. But yes probably will be a long shot. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the lack of response; I don't watch this page, and I never received the ping for some reason. The ratings template in question has gone through multiple deletion discussions, as I already mentioned, and while they didn't pass, there was agreement that the graph and table should only be used in the case of sufficient episodes; this article and its six episodes do not match that consensus. These discussions are available through the template's logs. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

bludgeoning this matter for years, as the discussion from mid-2018 shows. Where is the actual discussion that ended with consensus that six episodes is not enough to use the template? — Bilorv (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I got that one, all good! The accusation of bludgeoning, however, is far from AGF, that's upsetting. That discussion in question list previous and successful deletion discussions of related ratings templates, in which multiple editors state that even eight episodes would not be enough for a ratings graph, to the agreement of fellow editors. Let alone six? -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be obtuse,

WT:TV?). But I just don't understand why you pointed me to two policies with no relevance and then a template talk page with no relevance and now are referring to something I can't locate from the information you've given. What are the specific diffs and quotes? How do they show a strong project-wide consensus? — Bilorv (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

By the absence of mention of this threshold Alex21 is talking about, at the discussions cited, in the MoS for TV and in the template's documentation, it seems clear there's no consensus on it. This discussion should probably be centered only on this case. I think it's correct to remove it from this page, since out of the 23 episodes (counting Banderstanch), only six have ratings. There's only one season with ratings for every episode, as the third episode from season one seems to lack the data as well. If this was a miniseries with just six episodes, and all of them had ratings available, and it was coupled with meaningful commentary, then I think it should be no problem, however few the episodes are. Here, though, we have ratings for barely more than a quarter of the episodes, and there seems not to be any meaningful commentary related to these ratings to justify its inclusion either. —El Millo (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The notice the new auto generated note for "The Entire History of You" is inaccurate, which I believe is coming from this template (Template:Unreported UK viewers) added here [3]. The note reads "Not reported in the weekly top 15 programmes for four-screen viewer ratings", well this it technically correct, is there a way we change the "15" to "30" as it was not reported in 30 [4]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by Alex 21 here, for reference. — Bilorv (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see thanks, I am not famliar with the template. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Joan Is Awful
2. Loch Henry
3. Beyond the Sea (Black Mirror)
4. Mazey Day (Black Mirror)
5. Demon 79

-- Alex_21 _TALK 08:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]