Talk:White Christmas (Black Mirror)

Added a section/link to this article to List of Black Mirror episodes

It's unclear at the moment whether or not this is the first episode of the third series, or if the Christmas episodes will be stand alone specials, so I just gave the episode its own section, linking to this page. 2601:D:B481:1540:8DA:F93:D671:DA94 (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Beth's daughter

Was Beth's daughter given a name? Lrichar (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Lrichar (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Her name is May. Something which her grandfather refers her by when she enters the house to notify him of Joe:

"What is it, May? Would you like a drink? Blurphene (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

(For context, Jjj84206 added the Rotten Tomatoes score, which aggregated 18 reviews. I oppose its inclusion). Jjj84206, the issue here is that as documented at Wikipedia:Review aggregators, citing Rotten Tomatoes is not appropriate when there is not (in my own words) a sufficient sample size such that you can be confident that the result wouldn't change if the number of reviews aggregated increased 100-fold. I'm not quite sure what you can mean by RT being more "notable"—certainly not WP:N—but you say that IGN, AVClub, Telegraph etc. are all individual reviews and would be less "statistically significant". The difference is that here, the reviewers have written the ratings themselves and are all being described in prose as representing one review. RT is seen as a more "objective" measurement and it is collated from reviews which don't (always) give a 0-100 value in terms of reception. If we cite it then it should give some idea of an accurate overall picture of the reception to the episode; otherwise it is misleaidng. The IGN review, for instance, does not claim to be such.

You say that "all Black Mirror eps on Wiki cite RT", which is not a claim that will get past me as I wrote the majority of the content. To find our first counterexample we only need to look at the first episode, The National Anthem (Black Mirror). In fact if you look at all the good and featured episodes you'll find that RT is cited if and only if it has at least 20 reviews (as of the time me and other volunteers last checked, possibly barring human error).

Funnily enough I've had the exact conversation of whether 18 reviews is enough at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/San Junipero/archive2, where I initially had your point of view but was told 18 is still a relatively low number of reviews, to the point that accuracy seems questionable. The choice of 20 reviews is based on very lengthy discussions at Talk:List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which gathered consensus that <20 is not statistically significant and >=20 is; hence, at least 20 reviews is a requirement to be included in that list. — Bilorv (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv Thanks for starting the discussion and your articles are pretty high quality so appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia. I'd like to argue that first of all, there are no set standards as to what constitute as "statistically significant" in accordance with Wikipedia:Review aggregators. 18 vs 20, there's literally not much difference and there's no proven methodology as to why 20 should be the number that counts. That being said, RT's score here is 89%, which is substantially similar to IGN's 8.5, 5/5 star on Telegraph, and B+ on AV Club, so by including this score, you're not skewing the result of "positive reviews from critics" in any way. If, for example, that RT gives it 10% then I would be skewing the consensus here.

Secondly, if we cite IGN as itself for 8.5, that's only 1 sample, whereas RT's 89% is 18 samples, I'm not sure how 1 sample would be more "statistically significant" than one with more samples. It doesn't make sense mathematically, not to mention IGN is primarily a gaming review website and catered more towards viewers' interests, whereas for RT we are citing critics review (not audience review), that's also why we don't cite things like IMDB. I say that RT is more notable because it has a pretty detailed curation process by a team of professional reviewers (check their website), and it's the most trusted review aggregator besides Metacritic. If you take a look at the episode "White Christmas", it curated very notable cites including The Independent, The New York Times, New York (magazine)...etc, and yes it also includes the 2 sources you used here, Telegraph and IGN. So if you think IGN and Telegraph are trusted, then there's no reason that RT shouldn't be because it includes them as part of the overall score.

To further strengthen my point, the top critics here on RT (The Independent, New York Times, NY Magazine) all provided fresh scores just like the sources you provided so there is no contradiction. Your idea of "statistical significance" is further enforced with RT here because what you did was basically "extracted" 3 sources from RT and said "hey this represents what ALL critics think", which is the opposite of Statistical Significance. I think you're fixating too much on the "threshold" of 20% (which is never a consensus) and as you're an experienced wiki editor, you must know that things like this can never be measured using a hard number and editors must use their judgement, experience (which you seem you have), and professionalism to determine whether a source is notable or not. Now, if you really think that RT score should not be included (although you don't really have a good reason), what we can do is to take a few more top critic RT reviews (like I said, NY Times, Independent...etc) and then cite it alongside with IGN, AV Club, and Telegraph. But the result won't change because they provide equivalent positive scores, if not more positive, than the reviews you currently have. It will also be less statistically significant because you're only picking and choosing certain sources rather than the 18 samples RT provided. Therefore, I stand by my stance we keep my edit. Please let me know if you have further questions. Once again, thank you for your contribution.Jjj84206 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I can see that excluding something with 18 because it's less than 20 seems arbitrary from your perspective, but it's not arbitrary if you set a rule at 20 based on the most substantial discussions that have taken place that you can find and then apply it uniformly (my perspective). At risk of stretching the science analogy too far, IGN is an anecdote and RT is a scientific study—it's not anti-science to quote an anecdote when labelled as such, but it is anti-science to quote a study which had insufficient data to draw a conclusion. RT is a review aggregator so the point is to aggregate reviews; if it doesn't have enough information to do this then it doesn't provide value. IGN, on the other hand, aims to provide a review. The "insufficient data to draw a conclusion" here can actually be seen at RT itself, which (I believe) currently uses a threshold of 20 reviews as its minimum before its staff write "Critics Consensus" summaries. And the fact that adding RT wouldn't change the comments we make about consensus is irrelevant—I'm interested in establishing a rule or principle to apply on all similar articles.

If the IGN rating is not chosen by the critic who writes the review then this is (worrying) news to me but otherwise I'm afraid you'll need to explain your point a bit more—why would it not be the purpose of all critics to cater to their audience's interests?

When I summarise reviews such as The Independent, it's not really the point they that provide "fresh" (positive) reviews. That's not really important information to me. What's important to me is the suggestions they made for how the episode could be improved, the bits they thought were bad and the bits they thought were good (and why). You can write a review with almost no positive statements and still enjoy the episode (and this is commonplace). This is what differs from the review aggregator case, where this is markedly not the point of the information. Review aggregators need a lot of reviews to be accurate, because they just take one data point from each complex and multi-faceted review. Reviews, however, only take one to be accurate, because the way it works is that I summarise most or all of their key points (lots of data points), only one of which is their overall score.

With all due respect, I don't really think it sensible to follow one rule on 22 installments and another on the 23rd, after this local talk page discussion, and I also don't think that us as two individuals can gather a consensus stronger than that established at Talk:List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and Wikipedia:Review aggregators. I hope you understand that I'm not making this up ad hoc because I just wanted to undo your edit—it's literally the case that I've had the feedback "18 reviews isn't enough to quote RT" at an FA review and I don't see the point in including this in an article if it wouldn't be acceptable at FA standard. You could start this as a discussion in a wider forum, as an RfC for instance, with a proposal for a general rule to follow (e.g. "Always cite RT, regardless of number of reviews"), but I don't see the point in discussing this in isolation. — Bilorv (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you fully understood my point. By merely including Telegraph, Av Club and IGN, you're only including 3 reviews and 3 samples, as opposed to RT which is 18 samples. This makes it less reliable. You're still insisting that 20 must be the number that should be met, although I do not see this in the guidance as a hard number and Wikipedia purposely left the guidance here vague. Like I mentioned, the 18 reviews here, 3 of them included what you used for the article, so I'm not sure why you don't want more critics review in order to provide a more neutral, more comprehensive view of this episode? And again, the RT score of 89% is not contrary to the current article wording, which is "positive critics review" so whether this RT sentence is in or not, does NOT change the wording. I'm not sure why you're insistent on removing it and making sure the 20 review "rule" must be followed. As mentioned, if you really don't want the RT score, what I'll do is to extract some more reviews like NY Times, NY magazine, Independent, IN ADDITION to the 3 reviews you currently have. Because I think 3 reviews is not representative of what all critics think. An easy solution is to simply cite the RT score which is a consensus amongst critics and it does not contrast to the "positive critics review" statement. But if you want to do it the hard way I'm fine with it too.

Critics are supposed to be neutral and usually provide higher quality reviews than fans. There are reasons why metacritic and RT score are usually cited on Wikipedia, as opposed to IMDB or fan voting. I think you're misunderstanding here. But on Wiki we cite "critics" RT score, not fans. Take for example, Star Wars: The Last Jedi (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi), we would cite the RT score of 90%, not fans score of 42%. This is precisely why critics should NOT let fans influence their judgement of a movie, because they often form different opinion. If as you said above, critics should appeal to fans interests, then we no longer need critics. Your IGN review here is fine, but between NY Times vs IGN, NY Times is definitely more reliable.

So basically you agree with me. You just want consistency among your black mirror article creation process. I get it. If you have no further comments, I'll follow what I mentioned above and cite some more reviews, but remove RT score.Jjj84206 (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Just be careful that not all RT-considered reviewers are WP-reliable. I don't believe I have misunderstood your "3 samples versus 18 samples" point, and you can re-read my comment above to see my reply. I guess we are, however, somehow agreed in removing the RT score and citing more reviews. I do wonder if we've spoken past each other to the extent that you think the article summarises just three critics' reviews, whereas it summarises six or seven. Notice that the critics are introduced by full name and publication on first mention (often in "Analysis") and then referred to by surname throughout. I rewrote what was previously there a week ago and planned to add more soon but I've got a couple of other things I'm working on so if you want to add some more reviews, quoted in comments by topic in the same fashion as the article does so far, then that'd be a great help. — Bilorv (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

great, I have removed the score. You seem really capable. I'll leave you to enhance the article as you see fit.Jjj84206 (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:White Christmas (Black Mirror)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 07:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "It was ... It first..." repetitive.
• "Episode 7" - I think this could use a footnote as both the prior and next "episode" are part of a series, whereas this is "episode 7 (overall, not part of a series)", if you catch my drift?
• I've heard this referred to as a "triptych" of stories, any thoughts?
  • Bit too embellished prose for Wikipedia unless it comes up as a quote IMO—it's a nice description but the key information (three stories with a framing device) is, I think, mentioned enough already. — Bilorv (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• "he has crashed" but that misses the main point i.e. "while being remotely directed" or similar.
  • "while receiving remote guidance" — Bilorv (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• "a limited budget and timescale" I think I know what you're getting at but it's unlikely that either of these would be unlimited.
  • "restrictive budget and timescale" any better, the adjective describing the effects rather than the budget/timescale? — Bilorv (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• "with Rafe Spall as " first name repeat not needed.
• "why he ended up in the cabin" now I only just re-watched it (I think for the fourth time now) and I can't remember how either story ends up remotely explaining how he ended up in the cabin with Joe...
  • He says at the end of the first story: "Anyway, [my wife] left me, took custody of Mel—that's our daughter. Hence, stranding me in this lovely place." The story skims over this (concretely, how was he sent to the cabin?) because it's all a facade and Joe wouldn't really know why he's there if he thought about it (at the end Joe asks "What is this place? What job do we do here?"). I think it's fine to leave as is but let me know if you think it should be removed or expanded on (without "spoiling the ending" at this point in the plot). — Bilorv (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• "Matt fast-forwards time inside the cookie's world for six months," I don't think this captures it well enough. But I can't explain it succinctly. He makes her time pass at much slower rate than the real world....
  • "Matt makes six months pass inside the cookie's world in a matter of seconds ..."? — Bilorv (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• "Joe talks." probably the shortest sentence I've ever seen in all my 16.5 years on Wikipedia! Perhaps we can rejig to avoid such a micro-sentence.
  • See below. — Bilorv (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Is there a tense issue going on here? You have "He was "blocked"..." but shouldn't that be "He is blocked..."?
  • I had a lot of internal conflict over how to write this and Hated in the Nation and after reading MOS:PLOT and MOS:INUNIVERSE (and possibly another that I'm forgetting) I decided that these extended flashbacks should be explained in present tense because they happen on-screen and take up some/most of the episode. But idea was that if you say "he is blocked" straight away, it's jarring and unclear because it's not yet established as a flashback (that single sentence is from present Joe's perspective). So I've combined this with the above point and gone: "Joe opens up: in a flashback, ..." and then we can use present tense immediately. — Bilorv (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• " tries to confront " I think he does confront her.
• "agreed on a third series of four episodes on the" perhaps "agreed to" in order to avoid the "on.. on"
• "It aired on ..." last "it" was the next season on Netflix, perhaps ""White Christmas" aired on..."?
• "It was directed" similar, especially start of new section.
• "he had enjoyed the show " suddenly gone USEng, do we really mean "series"?
  • Yeah, I've used "programme". — Bilorv (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• " he was in the U.K." Hamm or Hader?
  • Well both I think but Hamm is the intended subject. — Bilorv (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• "Brooker: by chance, the agent had just signed Brooker and he was able to meet with Brooker" Brooker-tastic.
  • "Brooker: by chance, the agent had just signed him and they met up along with Jones" — Bilorv (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• "when Chaplin was " she, or reword sentence to avoid repeat of Chaplin.
• No need to link London.
• "in four corners of London " a bit colloquial.
  • "disparate areas of London" — Bilorv (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• "later series." -> "later Black Mirror series."
• "Eyes.[12][8][13]" preferable to see those in numerical order.
• " Handlen viewed each" He viewed.
• Joe's "moroseness" "tired slightly" over - strange double quote, would it not work as "Joe's "moroseness ... tired slightly" over ?
  • No, because the quotes are in the wrong order ("tired slightly of his character's moroseness"), so I've reworded: "However, Monahan 'tired slightly' of Joe's 'moroseness'". — Bilorv (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Accolades table needs row and col scopes per MOS:DTT.
• Ref col should be unsortable.
• Ref 9 has a spaced hyphen, should be en-dash.
• Ref 4 - "The" New York Times (c.f. The Guardian)
• Wizzard is mentioned in the infobox but nowhere else.

That's all I have. Thanks for allowing me to review the article, and enjoying what's in my top five episodes once more. Hope some of the comments are helpful. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, comments are helpful and it's a great episode. — Bilorv (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Delighted with this. Sorry that I missed you'd made the updates a couple of days ago, I appear to have a lot on my wiki-plate! I'm promoting, and looking forward to the next one. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Missing source?

"Jetlagged, Chaplin fell asleep during some of her early scenes, which required her to lie down on an operating table."

There's no source for this, and Google turns up only one result - an EOFFTV review. ElleBlair (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@ElleBlair: from the next inline citation, Inside Black Mirror page 117: Carl Tibbetts: Because Oona's first scenes involved lying down on an operating table, she fell asleep due to jet lag. — Bilorv (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)