Talk:List of Orange Is the New Black episodes

Point of contention

In an early conversation between Alex and Piper, Alex elaborately makes the point that she never 'held a gun' to her head, and Piper doesn't contradict that. Yet plot synopsis of ep 1 says Alex 'coerced' Piper. I'm halfway thru so I won't change this yet, but so far this seems a wrong word choice. Bustter (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --S trinitrotoluene (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd call it 'emotional coercion'. when Alex is trying to convince Piper to do the money run, she's feeling her up at the same time and saying that they will have a nice vacation visit after the drop. And Piper thought she was in Love. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

¶ For reasons I don't know, the internet version of this article requires some clicking to get the full list and summaries of episodes ... and the PDF version doesn't even have that, just a single page with a few headings and NO TEXT. Can anyone explain/cure this phenonmenon??? Sussmanbern (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyrighted material

All synopses for episodes 2 through 13 are copped from Netflix. Bustter (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed them and put in the standard hidden note discouraging copyvios. It seems to work on other articles. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit of 1x13 summary on 29 August 2013 at 2:32 AM CDT

-- Chapman decided against a "creative solution" for dealing with Doggett. Jefferson and her friends convinced her it would not work. -- There's no evidence that Chapman knocked out one of Doggett's teeth. --S trinitrotoluene (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.140.228 (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Connection with Neptune's Produce shown onscreen

The connection between Neptune's Produce and the Russian bosses in Red's flashback scenes is shown explicitly. In the flashback where Red proposes that they look into using government and hospital contracts, one of the bosses says "Neptune has lost three restaurants in the last week." In a later flashback, Neptune's Produce crates are seen inside her store. They're identical to the ones seen in the kitchen later on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roches (talk • contribs) 06:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Production codes in season 1

Hi everyone, are the Production Codes in the Season One table necessary? If all episodes have been shown in order of production, I don't see much point in this information being included. What do others think? I note the Production codes are not in the Season Two table of episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.65.3 (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Name of prison company

The company that bought/owns the prison is MCC, not MMR as listed many times through the synopses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.155.206 (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Season 5 Leak Synopsis

(PING: editors seen on recent history: @Drovethrughosts:, @AlexTheWhovian:, @Chairhandlers:, @Wikimandia:)

As most episodes were leaked, it appears that some editor has watched these and then wrote the entire synopsis for each episode. I do not think this is appropriate, as it has not been officially released. And if anything it seems like at the moment Wikipedia is endorsing online pirating by having these synopsis already in place. Or is there some rule that states synopsises can be written, regardless of how they were sought?

Be interesting to see what other editors think, but I propose we remove them. And then perhaps re-add/re-write once the actual season is on Netflix and released 100% officially. Because, as I said, at the moment it almost feels with those synopsises present, Wikipedia is endorsing pirating, and also has an one as an editor who has watched and done the work. 82.44.112.108 (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't appropriate, violates WP core content policies and WP:BALL. Synopses can only be written after a project has been officially released or if reliable sources have written non-speculative synopses pre-release. I've removed the section. Lapadite (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lapadite77:I undid your edit, but I commented out the section. This way it is not included in the article, but can easily be re-added when the time comes. Thanks!Terrorist96 (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I can still see it?! Either delete it or 'hide' it properly. But I think even 'hiding' the text is bad here as it was still written by someone who watched the leaked episodes. @Drovethrughosts:, @AlexTheWhovian:, @Chairhandlers:, @Wikimandia: @Lapadite77: @Terrorist96: 82.44.112.108 (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It was hidden properly. Someone else decided to restore it.Terrorist96 (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, who cares. Episodes and movies are leaked constantly. Movies and entire seasons of shows are also sent out early for previews en masse. Having episode summaries does not violate any copyright; it's not Wikipedia's job to be spoiler free. It's simply a description. PS Wikipedia also has a shit ton of content that was stolen and shared by Wikileaks and other electronic theft; does that mean Wikipedia is endorsing the people who broke in and stole the diplomatic cables, etc? No. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

No one on Wikipedia performed or was involved in any of the 'wiki leaks'. For this, someone has. And it isn't about spoilers. This is about an editor right here somewhere who has watched the leaked episodes and put up the synopsis. Very different than just 'reporting' on the Wiki Leaks which no one here would have had any involvement in. 82.44.112.108 (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no difference. Nobody on Wikipedia stole the OITNB episodes either. Someone else hacked in and leaked them and put them online, just like Wikileaks. If I were to embed a video, that would be copyright infringement. Summarizing a TV show or movie is not copyright infringement and it's not Wikipedia's place to endorse who is allowed to write what when because it's impossible. The plot summaries of half the movies and TV shows on here could be written by someone who got the episodes online or from an advance DVD screener. You really think all the Games of Thrones episode summaries were written by people who personally subscribe to HBO? I think not. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Leaks haven't been an issue before; Game of Thrones Season 5 and Doctor Who Series 8 were some previous cases of this. The episodes have become publicly available due to the leaks, meaning that the episodes are still the primary sources for all credits and summaries and the respective notes have been added concerning its release. If you feel that further action is needed on this topic, might I suggest posting at the WikiProject Television and gaining the views of other television-editing contributors? Cheers. -- Alex^TW 00:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with AlexTheWhovian. If IP user above thinks there needs to be a Wikipedia policy that addresses this, then bring it up there and discuss it. Personally, I think Wikipedia should stay neutral. Wikipedia is not Wikileaks; this is not a situation where people are dumping gigs of stolen content to Wikipedia. It makes no sense to me to try to police content by hiding original plot summaries (which are not copyrighted). —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Posting plot summaries is not an endorsement of piracy, come on. The main reason to exclude the summaries right now would be based on the fact that the hacked episodes might not be the final cut(s), and thus the plot summaries may end up being inaccurate. I'd lean towards commenting them out until the Netflix release confirms them. It's a rare situation so I don't know if t here's ever been a policy discussion on this kind of thing. --SubSeven (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Media have reported these were final cuts. The company that got hacked was post-production and adding credits and sounds effects, etc. but the director/editor/storyline was all put together. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lapadite77: As I stated in my edit summary in this edit, per WP:BRD (bold, revert, discuss), your bold edit to remove the content was reverted, now please wait for a consensus to form in this current and ongoing discussion, and allow the WP:STATUSQUO to remain while it does so. If you have further arguments against this, this is the place to list them - I believe that most of your issues that you listed in your edit summaries have already been addressed, especially concerning that displaying the episode table is not promoting the hacks at all, and simply listing the information that is available, which is also backed by reliable sources (see the above comments). Content does not need to be unique to one article either, as you seem to be stating about that the hacks, which released the season over a month early (also see the articles that I linked above, both seasons that were only one episode off of having half of the entire seasons leaked). Given that this article is directly about the episodes, it is probably more valid here than at any other related article. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 13:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The illegal hack+leak is why those episodes have been seen by those who downloaded and watched them. The episodes have not been released and reliable sources have not written about them. Those summaries are not verifiable yet by either reliable sources or people watching the official release; writing their summaries is presently WP:original research: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source [emphasis mine], even if not actually attributed. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged." There is no published sourced yet - reliable sources, or Netflix's official release. This material has already been challenged. It's innapropriate to keep adding it. Lapadite (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The means of them watching it is of no relevance to us as contributors to the site. If they have watched it, and are able to provide original summaries that have been written by themselves, that are not copyright violations, then that is completely acceptable per the guidelines that the WikiProject Television runs by. The summaries are by no means original research - see the episodes articles for any television series, and you will see that the summaries are all original, written by editors of the site, after having watched the episodes themselves. Any summary that is copy and pasted from a reliable source is a violation of Wikipedia policies. Simply because the material has been challenged, it does not mean we edit-war over constantly removing it. No other editor had had an issue with the content, and your bold removal of the table was reverted (both by another editing restoring then hiding it, then by me completely restoring it); now it is time to discuss the issue and build a consensus with the editors involved. -- Alex^TW 13:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian, WP:ONUS is in policy - "While content must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, verifiability alone is not a reason for inclusion, and does not guarantee that any content must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." [emphasis mine] On adding the hack/leak of a season's episodes to the lead - I've already stated my position that it gives undue weight to it, and is promotional in nature. That information won't be relevant after that season is released (unless reliable sources determine it has impacted the show or Netflix) and certainly not when future seasons are released. This is transient information, and promotional or sensational as I see it; it does not serve the encyclopedia. The material had been challenged. You've already reverted removal twice. You need to seek consensus to include it. Lapadite (talk)

If the content was hacked/leaked, and no RS has actually talked about the contents of the episodes, so that the only way WP:V could be met is to illegally download the episode, then it should absolutely not be included. However, I have recalled cases where a RS has actually provided a recap of a leaked episode, which would make the recap an acceptable source in lieu of the action episode.

The leak/hack absolutely should be covered though. You don't have to talk about the episode contents, just that it happened and NetFlix's reactions/response. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. Like I said before, per WP:V and WP:OR, a published source is needed to include content. The summaries can't yet be verified by a published source, whether secondary sources or the primary source. RSs have not given episode recaps, and likely won't until the season is released.

It's not about covering the fact of the leak (it is covered in the parent article and certainly may be covered in the body of this article), it's about it being innapropriate for the lead. What I said on WT:FILM: "As for including the leak in the lead, I believe it is undue weight. Reliable sources only reported the facts of the leak. They can't yet qualify its impact (if any) on the show or Netflix. Without an understanding of its significance (if any), why should it be noted in the lead. Verifiably doesn't guarantee inclusion. Since it would be mentioned just because it happened, I think it's also promotional to include it in the lead. Presently, there's nothing to suggest the leak of the season's episodes will have any relevance after the season is released. In my opinion, it currently isn't notable content (for the lead)." Lapadite (talk)

Oh, yes, for the lede, it's probably inappropriate if it doesn't otherwise affect how the rest of the season is released and received by the media; the leak becomes a footnote. If NetFlix however has to make major alterations that significant affect how the season goes, then that might be appropriate for the lede (for example hypothetically, NetFlix decides to reshoot some of the leaked episodes to change some revelations). Doubt that will happen, so right now, a mention in the body is fine. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I've contacted a couple of Wikipedia channels in regard to this matter that has legal implications. It needs to be escalated beyond our layperson takes. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

(BTW, completely separate: plot summaries are derivative works of the work they summarize, and can be taken as copyright violations; even if you argue a Fair Use defense, it could be taken that your summary has impacted their commercial value if the work hadn't yet been released, and you could still be liable. That's in part why we have WP:NOT#PLOT to keep plot summaries terse enough to support the context. ) --MASEM (t) 14:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Just for awareness: An article was written about WP posting supposed episode descriptions of the leaked season: Refinery29. Lapadite (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning leak in lead

So the leak summaries issue is resolved for now, removed due to possible copyright violation and no verifiability without a published source. Now, what is the consensus on whether or not the leak should be mentioned in the lead? My position is it is innapropriate for the lead: "I believe it is undue weight. Reliable sources only reported the facts of the leak. They can't yet qualify its impact (if any) on the show or Netflix. Without an understanding of its significance (if any), why should it be noted in the lead. Verifiably doesn't guarantee inclusion. Since it would be mentioned just because it happened, I think it's also promotional to include it in the lead. Presently, there's nothing to suggest the leak of the season's episodes will have any relevance after the season is released. In my opinion, it currently isn't notable content (for the lead)." Lapadite (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, I would state that given that this article is directly about the episodes, it is probably more valid here than at any other related article, especially given that it is the most recent season, and needs to be detailed due to the high traffic the article will receive due to the season's imminent official release. Perhaps not when we move closer to the release of later seasons. See Game of Thrones Season 5 and Doctor Who Series 8 for examples on how to deal with this; both of these seasons were only one episode off of having half of the entire seasons leaked. -- Alex^TW 15:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

If it's ok with Masem, I'm quoting his comment on this here (originally posted above this subsection, at 15:18, 26 May 2017): "Oh, yes, for the lede, it's probably inappropriate if it doesn't otherwise affect how the rest of the season is released and received by the media; the leak becomes a footnote. If NetFlix however has to make major alterations that significant affect how the season goes, then that might be appropriate for the lede (for example hypothetically, NetFlix decides to reshoot some of the leaked episodes to change some revelations). Doubt that will happen, so right now, a mention in the body is fine." Lapadite (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Featured character parameter in episode tables

I'm the second person to revert AlexTheWhovian's move of the 'featured characters' parameter to episode summaries. Instead of edit warring, certainly more productive to discuss here. His original edit summary stated "episode rows are for real-world information relating to the episodes (e.g. credits), and summaries are for in-universe details such as characters," but I'm not sure which guideline or policy that comes from. As I stated in my edit summary, the Template:Episode list itself illustrates multiple examples where in-universe information is included as a parameter. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough on the discussion, I accept that. I believe there's been discussions on this topic that only real-world information applies to the episode rows, and the |ShortSummary= parameter is for in-universe information; I'll see if I can find it eventually. Determining who the "featured" character(s) is/are is entirely original research, as its the editor's own observations and entirely unsourced. (Realistically, that means it shouldn't be included at all, but I know that if I'd blank-deleted it, that would have been vehemently opposed.) And just because other stuff exists, it doesn't make it right. -- Alex^TW 10:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If we define OITNB episodes' "featured character" as a character with flashbacks outside the prison, listing them most certainly falls under WP:PRIMARY as "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." There's no analysis or interpretation, so the primary source – the episode – appropriately serves as the reference. Further, "other stuff exists" doesn't particularly apply here when I'm citing examples listed on the template's "Using the template" documentation! -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources are for what is listed directly in the episode - that is, the credits for the episode. The directors, the writer, storyboard artists, production code, etc. The flashbacks are not, in fact, "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", they are events of the episode that editors have then determined important to the tables using original research - nowhere in the episodes is it listed directly who the "featured characters" are. None of this, however, sufficiently explains why the content is required in the table. How does it bring further understanding to the episode? Why must it be included in the main row, rather than the summary with the other in-universe summary details? How is this beneficial? And those examples were added in 2012, when the standards for the television article's method of style wasn't as high as it is now - realistically, many of the documentations for these templates require updating. I'll post to the MoS and WikiProject alerts to this discussion. -- Alex^TW 01:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that determining a featured character is prima facie OR... I think in some cases, it requires the same level of observation and reporting as picking out the plot elements for the episode summaries. But only in some: as shows evolve, they often complicate set formats like that, and then you end up with inconsistencies between or even within seasons, where a particular format (say, the flashbacks initially used in early seasons of Lost) get changed or broadened or even dropped. Or you get editors arguing over who is being featured, etc., which would definitely be OR. But I do agree that the specific instances of these storytelling devices don't deserve to be recorded for every episode in episode tables, as this information will implicitly be included in the summaries. It would be more appropriate to comment on the device(s)' use in general in a "Production" section. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

There is the general consensus that plot summaries do not need an inline citation because they are understood to inherently cite the primary source, per WP:PRIMARY. There is no difference with listing basic information from an episode like its flashback character or stardate in Star Trek – 'picking out' plot elements is not analysis. (Notably, episode titles are barely, if ever, credited within a TV episode, but editors do not have a problem with them). To your question, why featured characters are required in the table- they're not. But no one ever said they're 'required' – it was Alex who said that all in-universe parameters are forbidden, without citing any consensus, guideline, or policy. In the cases of Orange or Lost, their episodes typically revolve around one character. Since List of Lost episodes transcludes season tables, it is definitely of interest to the reader to have a 'featured character' parameter, since the plot summaries are hidden. An episode's featured character in many cases is certainly more important to understanding that episode than its title. Similarly, having the "Main segment" parameter in List of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver episodes tables makes complete sense to me – and is apples-to-apples in what we're discussing. In general, I'm not a fan of rigid consistency. There should be some flexibility to episode tables, depending on the TV series. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Season colors

Since season articles have now been created and each of them contain the main poster art for the season, I'm wondering if we should strive to have colors that better match the respective posters. Here's the current set of colors:

Season 1:  

Season 2:  

Season 3:  

Season 4:  

Season 5:  

Here's my thoughts on possible changes:

Season 1: Probably best to stick with orange, but we could also use teal to match the background, something like  

Season 2: Probably best to change to beige   to match the background, so black can be used later on.

Season 3: There's really no prominent colors here, and the red looks great (it matches the Netflix color).

Season 4: Since we'd already be using beige for season 3, we could use blue   (to match the shoes). Looks great in the infobox.

Season 5: Teal of course doesn't match at all. This is where we would use black.

If anyone has any thoughts or opinions, please share. I won't make any changes unless there's support for it. Thanks guys. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)