Talk:San Junipero

Title meaning

So the title probably refers to the Juniper Networks equipment that runs the heaven datacentre. Can anyone cite this or provide any evidence as I don't want to add it unsourced. carelesshx _talk 01:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no mention of Juniper Networks anywhere in the episode. It is just as likely that it was inspired by Junípero Serra. Keri (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

To a Californian it's an unambiguous reference to Junipero Serra and also a hint — he isn't a saint (at least not yet) and in any case most California Spanish place names come from the 18th century. Kevinpet (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kevinpet: do you have a reliable source that says this, so this interpretation can be added to the article? — Bilorv (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Plot Name Clarification

The original opening sentence in the plot section had "the shy and sheltered Yorkie"; changed to "a shy and sheltered woman named Yorkie" for clarity. ---Achiox 17:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:San Junipero/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 01:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Taking this one on. Good episode. —Ed!^(talk) 01:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   • "The episode has a substantially more hopeful tone than other Black Mirror stories and is the show's most acclaimed episode." -- I'd say this is an exception to WP:LEAD in that the "most acclaimed episode" needs a cite. Maybe it would be fine to say it's the only episode to win the kinds of awards it did, but to call it most acclaimed seems a bit subjective.
     • Well yes, the pertinent information this is trying to summarise are the facts that it has won more awards than any other episodes (both quantity and significance of awards). I've replaced this with "garnered popularity among both fans and critics, along with many awards". — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
   • "The episode is set in 1987 in a beach resort town named San Junipero, where Yorkie (Mackenzie Davis), a shy woman visiting the town, meets and falls in love with the more outgoing Kelly (Gugu Mbatha-Raw). The town is revealed to be a simulated reality in" -- The 1987 setting was presented as a plot twist in the episode, so maybe say it was set in a simulated reality that appears to be 1987. As worded now, it sounds like the real world presented in the episode is 1987 which isn't the case.
     • Moved this bit to "The town is revealed to be a simulated reality of 1987..." — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
   • Re: the quote on "a conscious attempt [...] to blow up what the show was". -- good here maybe to talk about what he means. Maybe a line to say the show's episodes are typically much darker and feature sad, sometimes almost horror-like endings.
     • Replaced with a similar quote and expanded – this bit now reads: "authored by Charlie Brooker, it was a "conscious decision to change the series". Though the show previously focused on technology causing disaster, this episode served as proof that uplifting Black Mirror episodes are possible."
   • Any details about their reaction to the award? Or larger thoughts about what the award meant for the show overall?
     • Other than the odd heroin joke, Brooker rarely talks about the award. I'm not sure it meant much for Black Mirror but some sources have noted what it means for queer representation in media so I've added a bit about that (in Analysis, as this is not intrinsically linked to the Emmys). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass Plenty of refs here.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass Images show appropriate copyrights.

7. Other:

   • Dup links, dab links show no problems.
   • I see one dead link that needs to be fixed.
   • Copyvio tool shows yellow, but I think it's just catching the use of quotes in the article, which are appropriately cited.

On Hold Pending a few fixes. —Ed!^(talk) 02:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I've quickly fixed the dead link (and the outdated URLs) and I will work on the other issues on Sunday. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 11:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I've responded to your other comments now. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. Article looks good now, passing GA. —Ed!^(talk) 20:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spoiler in main section, before Plot

I haven't had enough experience on Wikipedia to make this call on my own, but it seems to me spoilers for the plot are better kept in the Plot section (and perhaps sections following that). Currently, the 2nd sentence of the main section has the following spoiler: "The town is part of a simulated reality the elderly can inhabit, even after death." My suggestion would be to remove this sentence.

I feel it adds little, is already explained in more detail under Plot, and unnecessarily risks reducing readers' enjoyment of the episode. Considering the many mentions of how this plot twist was one of the aspects of the episode that received praise, it's fairly clear it is in fact a spoiler that would impact the viewing experience. Having read the Wikipedia guidelines on spoilers, one of the main arguments for not explicitly tagging spoilers is that sections with a name like "Plot" or "Ending" should be expected to contain spoilers, which further reinforces the notion that they don't generally belong in the main section.

I'd be happy to get the opinions of more experienced Wikipedia editors. If they would like to remove the aforementioned section, that would be great. If there are reasons not to, that would be fine too. And if nobody has any opinions for a while, I may remove the sentence myself. Rovack (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER we make no attempt to hide spoilers, and the fact that it is a simulated reality is a significant part of why this episode is well-recieved, and it would be incorrect to remove it from the lede before the plot. --Masem (t) 03:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This topic is controversial on Wikipedia but the current guideline is to treat spoilers no differently to any other information. It's a big spoiler because it's such an important part of the topic, which is actually the exact reason it needs to be summarised in the lead of the article. But apologies if this content personally spoiled the episode for you. I find it best to avoid Wikipedia for twist-reliant content like Black Mirror until I'm done watching it. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 15:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Other featured music

Right after Belinda Carlisle when you hear "Relax, you're quite safe here" and you see Max Headroom on the TV screens in the back, that song is a remix of "Paranoimia" by Art of Noise featuring Max Headroom. Should this be included in featured music? I feel it should but figured I'd see if there were any objections, and maybe get some input on where to best add it. Ehrichweiss (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ehrichweiss: thanks for raising this. If you look at the infobox documentation, it says for the music parameter Television episodes often include numerous songs; only include the most notable (typically songs playing during key scenes). In this case, each of the three songs listed is mentioned under #Setting and music with some important fact about it—how it inspired the ending, how it hints at the plot twist, and how it has significance to a key figure in the episode production, respectively.

There are many more songs in the soundtrack, but we do not have space to list them in the infobox, and other websites are dedicated to lists of episodes that play in television episodes. Three is a lot space-wise, and still omits songs that are central to the plot, such as "Living in a Box" (another joke about the plot twist). So this "Paranoimia" song is not suited to the infobox, I would say. — Bilorv (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I considered that could be the case. I know that the "Relax, you're quite safe here" was kind of foreshadowing of what was going on with the plot twist but didn't know if it were important enough or noticed enough for anyone to pick that out. ---- Ehrichweiss (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ehrichweiss: I've never considered its significance and I've seen the episode about a dozen times (and read many reviews), so I think it's quite an unnoticed one. But you've taught me something new about the episode! I'll have to watch out for it next time. — Bilorv (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Bisexual lighting

I'm not immovably opposed to removal of the bisexual lighting parts in theory but I'm not convinced, Cjhard, by your edit summary. The BBC article says that a commonly discussed example of bisexual lighting can be seen in the San Junipero episode of the Netflix show Black Mirror. The Emmy Award-winning episode follows the development of a relationship between two [sic] bisexual female characters. Many point out that these colours mirror those of the bisexual pride flag, and suggest the lighting design is a direct reference to the symbol.

I also believe the Cosmopolitan article is reliable and significant in context; incidentally RSP regards it as "situational" and I can't think of a less controversial situation than citing a professional critic directly in quotes for their opinion on a completely non-BLP topic.

Could you please explain more the other issues you had in mind in this edit summary or come back on those points? Would rephrasing short of removal address your issues? — Bilorv (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)