Talk:Blindspot (TV series)/Archive 1

Expanding the episode list?
The show's listings page on The Futon Critic has the release schedule for the rest of season 1 (but no titles for eps. 11-23). Should I use this information to add to the episode list, or is it too early? Zuko Halliwell (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Futon's "TBA" dates are not always accurate, but in this case it seems to be confirmed by NBC, so adding it should be fine. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, and for saving me the trouble of adding it. Zuko Halliwell (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is far too little information to warrant expanding it that far. Personally, I wouldn't expand it until there are some episode names. Ryan8374 (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

List of episodes - order
I dont expect a detailed synopsis here but these plots, totally unchronolgic as they are are quite useless. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.112.3.88 (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you wish to propose new plot summaries, you are more than welcome to. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  05:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Fanboy Episode Titles
Only fanboys could know why episodes are listed with two titles. What is this, the Blindspot Wiki?-217.248.20.109 (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do read the source in the header row. Is that better? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 08:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? I have to read the source before the article would start to make sense? That seems like a sensible way to make articles readable? Why write them at all then?-217.248.20.109 (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (BTW, is was right, you have to be a fanboy to understand it.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC))
 * I literally just asked if that was better. Where "that" meant changing the header to "Title / Anagram". Do try to read. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 08:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, do you read your own comments? You asked me to "read the source" (my emphasis), did you miss that? Was that your cat walking across the keyboard?
 * The mere mention of "Anagram" is even more fanboyish, if a little more explanatory. It also blatant OR. This clearly (see?) needs an explanation.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Then add an explanation. Reference note in the header? Or do you want everyone else to do it for you? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 09:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would simple remove the OR (shocking, I know), but we both know what would happen next.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that it's sourced, it's really not OR. OR is where we've decided on the content ourselves, which we have not. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 09:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See? It's not sourced, it's OR. OR is not changed to un-OR by just adding a small number pointing to a website, there must be a source actually supporting what you said.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Wait... Ok, I usually don't load random flash apps, but this is apparently what was needed here. So yes, CTV confirms the anagrams... in the most fanboyish way possible. Try to enter any text but the title and see how pathetic this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.20.109 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyway, yes there is a "source", and I'm still laughing about it.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have said: It is sourced in the header row. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 09:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You never said that.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? So, what was "Do read the source in the header row"? And we don't control how CTV displays the data, so that's not our issue. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Something else, obviously. Do you mean that you talked about sources and header rows in general terms? I agree, you did.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I pointed you to the source in the episode table's header row. Checking that would have instantly directed you to the page of anagrams. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but don't you see that "read the source" is not an adequate response to my initial remark?-217.248.20.109 (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It matters not. "Read the source" is obvious - if you have "read the source" right at the start, then you would have found your answers. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It matters since I am not your monkey, and I don't follow advice that is this obviously non-productive. "The article is hard to understand." - "Read the source." - Don't you see it?217.248.20.109 (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you beating a dead horse. The article has been modified accordingly, yet you wish to continue on with this nonsense. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So that must be the reason I sent those armed goons standing behind you, forcing you to comment again and again. My bad!-217.248.20.109 (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad you finally figured it out!  Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

English language, please
The lede refers to a "back-nine-order" which is not quite English What meaning is intended? Some mixture of golf and television?Edison (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It refers to the US network ordering the final episodes that make up a complete standard length season, but I agree - to the average reader, it is a techincal term. If there was an appropriate Wikipedia article the phrase linked to it would be OK, but in my view I think the term shouldn't be used. -- Whats new?(talk) 10:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So if you know the translation, fix it.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses the correct technical terms that are provided by the networks. We are not a dictionary. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 08:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we are AN ENCYCLOPEDIA!!! You are obviously new here, read the introduction before you participate in discussions.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way:
 * No results found for "back-nine-order" site:oxforddictionaries.com.
 * No results found for "back-nine-order" site:merriam-webster.com.
 * This is obvious. Terms like this don't belong in a dictionary, they belong IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. (Alternatively, they are merely used by very few specialists and SHOULD NOT BE USED IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA.)-217.248.20.109 (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. You can now use the internet. And yes, terms like "back-nine-order" do belong in an encyclopedia. Which is why they're here.  Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 08:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly, you can't use Wikipedia. (Why the personal attacks?) And no, they are not "here", except "here" is your head.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm finding it rather hard to discuss with you further, after you accuse of personal attacks, then proceed to do the same. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 09:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pot meet kettle. I don't intend to use personal attacks, that was only a (very obvious) demonstration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.20.109 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, the article is still rubbish and uses terms that not even two of the best-known dictionaries in the world understand.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hilarious! Now you've removed my link to the promised explanation with the "reason": "Unexplained link", to which a big fat "doh" really isn't doing justice. This is getting more entertaining by the minute.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 09:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh? Really? Perhaps you should re-add the link and then click it. What's that? It's a redlink? Amazing. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your snippyness makes you less than clear. I know it's a redlink, I added it after I you said that the explanation is already in Wikipedia. Obviously, you didn't mean that the term is explained, but that Wikipedia uses terms that cannot even be understood if you know two of the best known dictionaries entirely by heart. Yeah, that sounds like a really good idea. What's your motive? Do you want to restrict the article to fanboys and industry geeks? Do you want "activate" couch potatoes to look the term up themselves? Just plain elitism? I don't get it.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please explain your narcissistic manner at not allowing all editors to read this discussion in a regular manner. Your comments have not at all been modified. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "not allowing all editors to read this discussion in a regular manner", right.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are obviously not aware of discussion etiquette in indenting and signing your posts correctly. Please educate yourself. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop this distraction. The article is rubbish, and you are defending that state. In your view, it's absolutely fine for Wikipedia articles to contain terms that not even Merriam-Webster understands.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Says you, who refuses to allow for a standard discussion layout. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to able to follow it just fine. While defending terms that are so obscure that not even the Oxford Dictionaries know about them.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I do. However, it is for other editors. Why do you disagree with it so? And you're the one complaining without even offering an alternative Almost as if you refuse to do any work yourself. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary so far: That's it. After that point, only red herrings and distractions.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Article uses an obscure industry term.
 * 2) Alex agrees with that because Wikipedia is "not a dictionary".
 * 3) It turns out that not even dictionaries know about the term.
 * And don't forget: No alternative offered by the complaining editor. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * [Misread that] I'm busy explaining to you why it's not the best course of action to include specialists terms in Wikipedia articles. Takes longer than I assumed.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You fight tooth and nail for a little, but you point to me to improve that article. Let me guess: You are an administrator. (Edit: Wrong.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.20.109 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * After you again messed up my edit comments, after several very clear request not do that, I sadly can no longer assume good faith on your part.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Now you're adding your posts in reverse order?! My word. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You commented "After you again messed up my edit comments", then you added the "You fight tooth and nail" comment before the former one. Reverse order. Can't keep track here! Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, had to revert some vandalism, that must have messed up the time stamps. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.20.109 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to see that you focus on the important things, like my time stamps, and not on trifles like the readability of the article!-217.248.20.109 (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you can't follow ... anything. You want readability of the article, but can't even follow the readability of THIS page. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can follow this page, thanks for your concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.20.109 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, you are still defending the position that Wikipedia articles should contain specialist phrases.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the article still contains a term that not even the Oxford dictionaries understand.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, you refuse to offer an alternative. Else this discussion will go nowhere. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I already responded to that particular nugget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.20.109 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, at least you are honest about your section titles, my suggestion clearly was no longer true. Thanks for changing it!-217.248.20.109 (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Most welcome! And you gave a summary, not an alternative for the article. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Holy crap. I just asked for an alternative. Meaning I want to change it. What else does that mean?? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (Now how do I properly indent that mess?) I said I responded, not that I gave an answer. Your remark is fallacious, that's why my response was not an answer. You did? I must have missed that, please provide a difflink.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guessed that that was bullshit.-217.248.20.109 (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Title Anagrams
http://www.ctv.ca/Blindspot/Articles/Latest-News/Blindspot-Anagrams.aspx informs us that titles are anagram clues. Entering any text reveals the anagram.


 * Episode 1x01: WOE HAS JOINED -> Who is Jane Doe? (Confirmed by CTV.ca)
 * Episode 1x02: A STRAY HOWL -> Taylor Shaw (Confirmed by CTV.ca)
 * Episode 1x03: EIGHT SLIM GRINS -> The Missing Girl (Confirmed by CTV.ca)
 * Episode 1x04: BONE MAY ROT -> Or Maybe Not (Confirmed by CTV.ca)
 * Episode 1x05: SPLIT THE LAW -> Will the Past (unconfirmed)
 * Episode 1x06: CEDE YOUR SOUL -> Cloud Our Eyes OR Codes Lure You (unconfirmed)
 * Episode 1x07: SENT ON TOUR -> Trust No One (unconfirmed)
 * Episode 1x08: PERSECUTE ENVOYS -> Suspect Everyone
 * Episode 1x09: AUTHENTIC FLIRT -> Lift the Curtain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.213.103 (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Will the Past" and "Cloud Our Eyes" confirmed by Variety. – nyuszika7h (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, CTV.ca says "The Past Will" for episode 5. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, "Evil Handmade Instrument" is an anagram for "and unveil the mastermind," which fits the pattern ("Lift the curtain and unveil the mastermind"). I suppose that's just OR until the ctv.ca site confirms it, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.152.145.110 (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Should these be listed as alternate titles instead of adding it to the summary, where it doesn't actually contribute to the episode's summary? Examples are as follows. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 06:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with that – I'd prefer using AltTitle, though in episode 1 we'd probably have to make it "Woe Has Joined" / "Who is Jane Doe" or something like that. nyuszika7h (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The anagrams aren't actually alternate episode titles though, they're clues. No sources mention these are episode titles. The CTV and Variety sources just confirm what the anagrams are. The press releases and the official website do not make mention of these as alternate titles, so it's original research to claim them as official alternate titles. The anagrams are worth mentioning (such as at the end of the episode summariews), but it's incorrect to label them as alternate titles. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Episode 1x14 RULES IN DEFIANCE is FIND A SECURE LINE ; Episode 1x15 OLDER CUTTHROAT CANYON is TO CONTACT YOUR HANDLER (Put together: "Find a secure line to contact your handler") Source: My noggin (otherwise unconfirmed) Michaelopolis (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The CTV link no longer works. Is there another source? Barry margolin (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * CTV link now works again; added the archive link for it. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 22:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

According to the groups on Reddit, which seems to be the actual source of almost all the suggested solutions, here are the title anagrams:

Season 1:

1x01 "Woe Has Joined" = Who is Jane Doe

1x02 “A Stray Howl” = Taylor Shaw

1x03 “Eight Slim Grins” = The missing girl

1x04 “Bone May Rot” = or maybe not

1x05: "Split The Law" = the past will

1x06: "Cede Your Soul" = cloud our eyes

1x07: "Sent on Tour" = trust no one

1x08: "Persecute Envoys" = suspect everyone

1x09: "Authentic Flirt" = Lift the curtain

1x10 "Evil Handmade Instrument" = and unveil the mastermind.

1x11 "Cease Forcing Enemy" = In case of emergency

1X12 "Scientist Hollow Fortune" = follow these instructions,

1X13 "Erase Weary Youth" = Stay where you are

1X14 "Rules In Defiance" = find a secure line

1X15 "Older Cutthroat Canyon" = to contact your handler

1x16 - Any Wounded Thief --- FIND WHAT YOU NEED

1x17 - Mans Telepathic Loyal Lookouts --- IN ALMOST THE LAST PLACE YOU LOOK

1x18 - One Begets Technique --- TO BEGIN THE SEQUENCE

1x19 - In the Comet of Us --- FOCUS ON THE TIME

1x20 - Swift Hardhearted Stone --- THEN HEAD FIRST ROAD WEST

1x21 - Of Whose Uneasy Route --- TO YOUR NEW SAFEHOUSE

1x22 - If Love a Rebel, Death Will Render --- THE FINAL ORDER WILL BE REVEALED

1x23 - Why Await Life’s End --- WHEN IT'S FILED AWAY???

Season 2:

2x1 - NOTHING IS MORE DANGEROUS.

2x2 - THEY INVOKE FEAR,

2x3 - FOR THEIR MOMENT IS NEAR.

2x4 - THE FBI

2x5 - DEFENDS THE CONSTITUTION.

2x6 - SHEPHERD'S ARMY

2x7 - ONLY SERVE THEMSELVES. (or SERVE ONLY THEMSELVES)

2x8 - WHEN THE SOLDIERS ATTACK, WE FIGHT ON.

2x9 - WE SHALL PROTECT YOUR FREEDOM.

It appears episodes 2x10 change to include their own anagrams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerpatrick (talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you looked at the article, you would find that all of these anagrams are already included. And Reddit is not a reliable source here on Wikipedia. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)