Talk:List of Orphan Black episodes

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Please stop removing unaired episodes from the list[edit]

I cited where I got the information for upcoming episodes so that they would be listed. The purpose for this is so that it can be known when the episodes will occur. Data driven sites like http://www.airdates.tv require this information in order to function properly. If you wish to improve upon the future listing that's fine but please do not remove upcoming episodes. GravisZro (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally accepted that we do not add a new column until there's more information than an air date, such as episode titles, etc. And if you're inferring that we should add air dates so a separate website can function, well, that's far and away from a reason to do it. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the premise that more information than the air date should be required to be listed because some information is better than no information. I'm not saying it should be kept purely for the benefit of other sites, I'm saying it should be kept so that people can know when it airs in advance. The site listed is an example of how it helps people. GravisZro (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Episode title work quoting[edit]

Each section mentions the common nature of each season's titles and who they are derived from.

Can we explain this in more detail with a note by each title and the specific page number of the work, in the case of written work?

Obviously not something to do with the farewell address from Eisenhower which has no clear page division, but it would be more useful for identifying the book quotes. I am interested in doing this for Containment (TV series) as well.

Are there other shows like this with a unifying theme of quotes as titles? Could we put together a category? 64.231.169.3 (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea (for both series) and believe a category would be beneficial. Rcul4u998 (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan Black prodcodes and eps[edit]

These are sourced per the ISAN-IA database as the season five ref state. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking on ISAN.org for Orphan Black and I see no mention of these production codes. I'm assuming you mean ISAN.ca, which is only available if you have an account. Regardless, these aren't production codes, they're unique identifiers like ISBN for books. Production codes are assigned by the production company and appear in the end credits of episodes. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I just wanted to add that (if it's relevant), in the article for Production code number, at the bottom of the article under "Code formats", it states that "A number of Canadian and Australian produced shows use the ISAN format, which is burned-in on the end copyright slate." -- Alex^TW 13:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've never seen those types of codes before. Have you seen ISAN codes used in articles? Is this an accepted practice? Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though there may be more that I'm unaware of, as I don't normally meddle with production codes, two that I can list off the top of my head are Shadowhunters and Killjoys. I've seen no issue with them before; it may not be a common practice, but that's probably because not many series use it. -- Alex^TW 13:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

see ISAN-IA public search. Also root_part clearly states that this is derived from the production code and denotes production order. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also that field is included to show the production order, not the exact internal, privately defined number format. May be someone should rename it prod. order and not code. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see where you are finding these codes. I'm looking at entries for specific episode and there is no (for example) "224086-1". All I see is the ISAN numbers (such as "0000-0003-6B56-0009-E-0000-0000-W"). Also, is there a reason why season 2, episode 2 does not have a code? Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ISAN prints codes in ugly and annoying to read hex format, as stated on the commit 224086-1 is in cleaner and clearer decimal form. 224086 = 0x36B56. As for the the missing code, Temple Street Productions which submits them, has a habit of screwing up. The end slate for that ep had the code zeroed out. The shows Being Erica and Killjoys, they have in error created new root codes for new seasons. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this all seems very complicated, confusing and unnecessary. The fact is, these "codes" are nowhere to be found in the source provided. How you're extrapolating "ISAN 0000-0003-6B56-000D-6-0000-0000-J" into "224086-13" is beyond me. The missing code is "ISAN 0000-0003-AA96-0000-7-0000-0000-G", so why cannot that have a "224086-??" code? The fact that the episodes all off by one after the missing code is also odd. An episode cannot just not have a production code. This is all why this should not be included. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not hexadecimal is base-16 and decimal is normal base-10. ISAN just stupidly use it in printable form, because they defined it for a binary barcode and just carried it through to the printable form. They are off by one because stupid Temple Street never assigned a code to that one ep. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back again. I find myself agreeing with Drovethrughosts. Do you expect everyone to be able to convert between the two to verify the information is correct? Yes, there may be a way to extract the codes from the ISAN number and convert it to some production code, but if the code is not explicitly stated in the source without any conversion required, then the source does not support the code(s) that is/are being added. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 02:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going by what you are saying, you would have us use the bloated and confusing ISAN hex format. And it's a basic fact that base-10 numbers are the most readable and relate better to humans. Hexadecimal notation is only practical for coding. Also all other prod. codes are alpha numeric base-10. And no one needs to convert to hexadecimal unless they want to use the limit ISAN-IA public search system. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's my final opinion on this matter. I just checked my Orphan Black Blu-rays, and these ISAN codes are in the end credits (something I didn't know). This makes me fine with the codes being included in the article. However, there needs to be a note in the article explaining how the ISAN codes are turned in the shortened codes, because there is no way an average reader (and that includes myself) is going to understand where those numbers are coming from. Secondly, the missing code: if all codes after that are wrong then this is a problem. What I don't understand is that season 2, episode 2 "Governed by Sound Reason and True Religion" has an ISAN number (0000-0003-AA96-0000-7-0000-0000-G), so why cannot it not have a 224086-?? code. I asked this before and you didn't answer it. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is Governed by Sound Reason and True Religion was supposed to be 224086-12, but got missed in the numbering, so I would suggest using 224086-12a and 224086-12b for the other as the production company will not correct it as it would require them renumbering the later eps. as for the hex to decimal change, something like "Production codes are in decimal form for uniformity with other codes". 124.197.3.196 (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can understand that 0000-0003-6B56 = 224086 (using an online hexadecimal to decimal converter), but I don't understand how the second half of the ISAN code equals a number (1 to 49). I really want to understand this if it's going to stay in the article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

0000-0003-AA96 is the root of 224086; 0000 is the part or prod. code of zero; 7-0000-0000-G is the version which can be ignored. So root-part is 224086-0. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After doing a bit more analyzing and research, I understand it fully. Do you have any further knowledge why "Governed by Sound Reason and True Religion" has a different style ISAN code though; it uses AA96 while all other episodes have 6B56. What would be the best way to explain it in the article? As I'm not a fan of just leaving it blank. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed 0000-0003-AA96 is 240278 and it seems to be the same screw up that happened with first ep from season three of Being Human. Muse Entertainment created a new root for "It's a Shame About Ray" and it's never been corrected. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note about the ISAN details. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]