Talk:Fringe (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cleaning up the wording, all battles aside

Reading the article for the first time today, I was struck at the line "Goodman also points to the usage of the "bubble graphics" to note a change in location tends to distract the viewer.[9]" in the "Production" sub. Who the hell is Goodman? I'm guessing Tim Goodman, who is referenced *below* this mention, but the footnote does not refer to something that he wrote. Short of deleting the offending statement, I wanted to see if anyone who knows what is going on with it wants to fix it. Quine (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

New External Link?

Personally I feel this site doesn't offer enough to people who want more questions answered about Fringe. That is why I think that a new link should be added, a link to the Fringe Wiki. Which is constantly updated with the newest facts, news, and spoilers. This isn't spam because I'm not trying to sell anything or make a quick buck, in fact no profit at all is being made. It's an honest site for those wanting to learn more about the show Fringe. In fact the fans help create this site, so how can that possibily be labeled spam.

If you have an opinion for or against the addition of this new link please discuss here. Remember post your opinions here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mg.mikael (talk • contribs) 14:02, May 24, 2008

The hlink does not belong, period. It is a fansite and spam. Spam does not require making a profit to be spam. Do not keep readding it or you will be blocked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll support whatever decision is made. At least the FOX official site, which apparently is one of the OK sites to link to, has the FringeWiki link easily accessible just the same. People will find it, as it's an essential component to the official site anyway. mistakite (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I nominate Hulu.com/fringe to be added to the external links page. Do any others think this would add to the content and usability of the article? Collectonian is opposed, and has removed not only the link I added, but also my addition to the talk page where I suggested such an addition. Collectonian, do not remove this post. Mr. innocent (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It violates WP:EL and has no purpose here at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that. I've already explained you the reasons on my talk page, Mr. innocent and I'm repeating this again: the site isn't officially associated with the series and the content is only accessible within the United States that greatly limits its usage as an external link for worldwide users. LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Spammers

Please appreciate what this article and discussion would look like if an exception was made for your site. If you feel this Wikipedia entry is insufficient, please feel free to edit it. BOTF (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think you're way too concerned with this site, and you're not a moderator.

2nd Edit: Please sign your comments. Please refrain from spam dressed up as an agument in favor of spam. BOTF (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

BOTF, stop removing people's talk page comments. Mg.mikael, stop spamming the site. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, stop being so harsh. Other wikipedia sites have links to wikis, and fan sites. This one has nothing. So stop being so damn stubborn, and let edits happen. Heck the TV.com link is spam but you're not deleting that. So stop being so hypocritical.- mg.mikael

Please see WP:EL - TV.com is a professional site which has a large amount of reliable content which Wikipedia cannot incorporate without having copyright issues. The fan site, on the other hand, does not. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TV.com is a perfectly acceptable link, and called for in the infobox and the MoS. Your fansite spam is spam, period. The link does not belong, period. Your actions regarding this link, and my user pages, are highly inappropriate. If you wish to be a valuable contributer to the project, you need to get a better understanding of linking policies. Spam being on other pages is not a valid excuse to add it here. Its removed as its found. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Language

Add the nl:fringe page please! Bardman (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Air date

{{editprotected}}The J.J. Abrams sci-fi skein will air its first episode -- an expanded two-hour installment -- on Sept. 9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsartoros (talk • contribs) 10:57, June 9, 2008

 Not done Please provide a reliable reference. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to an article confirming that the premiere for Fringe will air on Fox on September 9, 2008, from 8:00 - 10:00 p.m.:

[1]

http://www.tv.com/fringe/show/75146/story/11363.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=headlinessh&tag=headlines;title;0om_act=convert&om_clk=headlinessh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.87.68 (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Pilot Leaked onto Internet?

Is it worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.184.218 (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It would only be worth mentioning if it was covered by reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Would this count as a reliable source? [link removed] casecloser (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, and please do NOT link to sites distributing illegal copies of copyrighted content. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Your own senses are not realible sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamThe1 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. Of course they aren't. Taedirk (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, yes. Wikipedia does not consider copyright violating websites to be a reliable source. Again, for this to be mentioned at all, it needs coverage in reliable sources, and for it t really actually be notable, it needs significant coverage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• The pilot has indeed leaked out on the internet, however we can't be absolutely certain that the leaked version is the real version and not a decoy. I suggest that we add a separate subsection to the article highlighting the claims that the pilot has been leaked. Once the actual series airs on TV, then we can edit the section to say whether these claims were proven to be true or false. --Pavithran (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• The pilot that has leaked on the internet is real, just watch it. This has to be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.227.88 (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Again no. Unless the "leak" is covered in reliable sources, it doesn't matter and is not something worth mentioning. It doesn't get a section, nor a subsection, nor does it "have" to be in the article. Its nothing notable if reliable sources haven't actually covered it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Diggs: http://digg.com/television/Pilot_episode_of_J_J_Abrams_new_show_Fringe_leaked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.223.182 (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Digg is not a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually yes. Digg is a totally reliable source - since they link to the origin of the story - whether or not you want to trust the information then depends on what they link to. Which in this case is a link to a link to the torrent. However even if this was on CNN its still not much in the way of a story - all series more or less get leaked these days. A phenomenon which in itself might need an article for historical reasons (assuming Wikipedia survives the Singularity ;)--IceHunter (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume wired would be a more reliable source? http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/06/fringe-pilot-le.html It seems that a pilot being leaked 85 days before its official timing would be a notable part of a series history. 86.20.234.118 (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The pilot's real -unsigned

{{editprotected}}

 Not done consensus has not been reached. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would we comment directly? He's a better way to go about it:

Reception

Though not currently airing, the show's pilot has been leaked by unknown parties. fScience fiction and gaming columnist, Warren Ellis, reviewed the pilot in his BAD SIGNAL newsletter, saying that it was uneven but well made and "might get quite watchable, once it gets comfortable with The Mad Science." Other sources have commented on the pilot leak, but thus far have not reviewed it.

-Miskaton (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that rumors aren't always a bad thing to cover in an article, but we have to be careful to cover them as rumors. For example, there is an entire article about the Apple community. What's difficult is determining the notability of a rumor. I think, in this case, independent reviews by Warren Ellis, Wired and USA Today can be seen as confirmation enough. -Miskaton (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the editprotected template, since there was no discussion of my above text (I assume this means that either no one cares or everyone thinks it's fine). Feel free to speak up if you feel otherwise. -Miskaton (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What does any of it have to do with the series's reception. And how are two blog postings, not real news stories, somehow evidence that the leak is at all notable, or even unusual? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is no "film" involved
• The "reception" section of most articles about media on WP is where we discuss many things related to reception, but it's typically dominated by reviews. This is why I titled the section the way I did, since the primary item here is a review by Ellis, whose views on media are widely consumed via his Reuters column; newsletter; web site; and various print publications (including reprints of his electronic newsletter; novels; comics, etc.)
• Notability is established through observing the breadth of reporting, and I think it's fair to say that this is pretty widely reported for something that seems to have happened yesterday
• You're misusing the word "blog" here. We're talking about columns written by Wired and USA Today that they call "blogs," not some random fanboy with a blogspot account. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, there, but that's how I understand these mass media "blogs" that just about every print and TV news outlet has now.

The fundamental question remains: if USA Today and Wired have both reported that this happened (and thus we can be fairly sure that it did), and we have a well known SF author and creator of one of the best known leaked pilots (see Global Frequency) reviewing it... why are we concerned about disclosing that information on WP? Is there some damage that will be done by saying, "these news outlets said something about this show and this fairly well known guy (in media circles, anyway) wrote a review." Heck, this information is actually better sourced than a whole lot of other detail in this article! -Miskaton (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: I'm partly incorrect, above. The Wired piece is syndicated from the Web site "releaselog" (rlslog.net) which appears to be a new releases review site, syndicated via RSS. This is more of a blog in the traditional sense. The USA Today piece is by a USA Today staffer who writes their pop-culture "blog" in the sense that I was indicating above. I'm modifying the refs as such. -Miskaton (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Side point: this article was protected (not even semi-protected, but full-on protected) 17 days ago! We don't lock anything for 17 days without there being a really good reason, 12 days ago, and the edits that I propose above, while quite possibly deserving the attention of other editors who might come along and modify to taste, are not the subject of the revision war that lead to the protection in the first place, and therefore should be added to the article just like any other edit. To lock a page for over nearly half a month and then block otherwise unrelated and sourced edits is a pretty odd usage of administrative powers on Wikipedia. -Miskaton (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, what is the point. A few bloggers noted they could get the pilot earlier. We don't run around noting any other series that is stolen and stuck online without significant coverage that does more than just mention it. It happens. Neither of that stuff said is actually relevant or even notable. As for the last bit, from my understanding, once a page is under protection, particularly for edit warring, then any edits need consensus. But you'd have to actually ask an admin about that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Could it help smooth things over if the page were unprotected? I'd like the assurance that no-one will edit war, though (or not, I guess :-p). It was accidentally set to infinity, fyi...set to expire in 2 days, now ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't a mediation cabal beyond excessive (not to mention its being create by an SPA who has done all of two edits, both to open the cabal, seems odd). There has been no request for 3O, no RfC, etc etc. The Cabal listing is also false, claiming I've locked the article. I'm not an admin, so obviously I didn't lock anything. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but his request makes sense, so I'm not worried about intention (he may have been confused about who locked it). At any rate, you can request a 3O (RfC might be excessive; but then, I've never considered it a great option), but I can help in whatever way I can :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Collectonian. My request is reasonable given how long the page has been locked and my goal is not to engage you in conflict, but to unlock/partially unlock this page so additional content may be added. Let me and others know how we can assist you in achieving your goals for this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.157.206.209 (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Mediation is rather excessive at this point, wen there are early steps that coul dbe taken. I requested the page be given "temporary full protection" after a call for help was sent to the TV project due to the edit warring. I requested it be protected specifically due to "IPs vandalizing both main and talk pages. Registered users edit warring over addition of WP:COPYVIO episode summary and spam links being added"[2] The admin who locked it said to complete the discussion here and come to a consensus, then request unprotection[3]. If someone feels consensus has been reached regarding the "leaked" episode, feel free to send in the unlock request.

As for "achieving my goals for this page" I have none other than to ensure the page does not go back into an edit war when it is unlocked, and to keep an eye on it to make sure no one tries to add back the illegal links and spam to the article. Beyond that, I just hope the people editing it will follow the TV MoS and Wikipedia's guidelines and guidelines, particular those regarding reliable sources, verifiability, linking to copyright violations and external links, so we don't get anymore calls for help regarding issues here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright - I'll close the case as you're a major party listed. I'll keep the page watched, at any rate. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It was shown by the producer at a Comic Con convention. I watched the premiere and it IS indeed the pilot/premiere episode that will be 2 hours long (just over 81 minutes without commercials). If you go back and watch the previews for the show on the FOX site, and have watched the leaked show, then indeed it is the pilot episode. As to linking to copyrighted material, give me a break. WP and WN does it all the time. They are called sources. So regardless of whether something has a film or whatever on the site, does not mean its illegal, or wrong for WP or anyone else to use it as a source. I think the leak should be mentioned. Simply mentioning one link to a site, having the film or not, does not mean WP or anyone else is promoting or encouraging the download of it. DragonFire1024 (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. See WP:COPYRIGHT. We do NOT link to sites showing illegal copies of copyrighted material, period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Linking to recognised blogs like Wired and USA Today however, does not breach Wikipedia policy, however.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

References

What's it about?

Just curious. Can't really tell from the wikipedia article. Isn't that sort of a problem? WtW-Suzaku (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, not really. We only know the plot from the leaked pilot, and we can't comment upon that for all sorts of reasons until the pilot has aired. But basically it's about these weird things happening, which get traced to the really far our research of some scientist in the 70s who's now in a maximum security prison, and an FBI agent finding his son and uncovering a huge corporate conspiracy involving the use of far-out scifi technologies and experiments. It will build and start to make more sense (like Lost?) as it progresses.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that a policy to not talk/write about it until its aired? I don't think so. There are plenty of reviews and sources about the film/show. You can easily write what it is about from them. Besides, the premiere was shown at a Comic Con convention by Abrham's himself. So if there is a specific policy stating we cannot write about the show's plot (premiere's plot) then please do show me. DragonFire1024 (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as you have sourced reviews, then by all means create plot and reception sections!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

The article has a lot of references and citations, but they're mostly confirming casting. The cast section can be turned into a table and cite the official website. The rest of the article needs some standard sections like critical reception. The article barely describes the series premise. --William Graham ^talk 23:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Fringe Experience

As it is obvious from the amount of External Links that have been added then removed from this page that J.J. Abrams is at it again with online teaser websites, as he did with both Lost and Cloverfield, I suggest either a section for this be added to the article or a new article be devoted to it. I've noticed that some people seem to think the websites are irrelevant to the show itself but they are not truly irrelevant in the scheme of things considering what a large scale to-do The Lost Experience became. Tastepaper (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If they are official things, they should already be linked to from the official website, and we do not need to repeat them here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree. Even if these are in fact websites created by show creators, they are more devoted towards user experience than show information. A possible midway could be to mention these links in marketing section under viral marketing. But for that you'd need third party sources confirming their authenticity and reception by viewers. LeaveSleaves (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, too. Viral marketingis tricky - it usually works best when it appears as a grass-roots thing, or a slickly professional one (like the Dharma Initiative site). Some are pretty easy to verify; some are not. - Hexhand (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting old. As far as I've seen each television series, film or video game that has/had a viral marketing campaign has the campaign included in the article by mention of some sort. (See articles for Heroes, The Dark Knight and Halo 2). Considering how large the viral marketing schemes became for Heroes, Halo 2, Cloverfield, The Dark Knight, Lost, etc., it's probable this will get its own article in the future. I'll wait for that rather than waste my time to have it erased because one person considers it irrelevant. Tastepaper (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Pilot episode redirect

The result of the recent AfD discussion regarding Pilot (Fringe)consensus was to KEEP that article. However, the closing admin decided to add a redirect to the article (replacing its entire contents and effectively deleting the article), prevents that article from being seen. As well, when it was recently listed with Deletion Review, the contents of the article were utterly removed. - Hexhand (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The contents of the pilot article can be found here. Dreadstar † 20:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, without history. In a talk page, floating out in the middle of the ether. Not really what the AfD intended, now was it? - Hexhand (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Pilot AFDd

Per consensus at DRV, I've gone ahead and relisted Pilot (Fringe) at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot (Fringe). Dreadstar † 23:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fringe's false location titles

As any Fringe viewer would notice, there is often text showing where people are. Unfortunately, it is relatively pointless. They often refer to small towns, assuming that no one will notice that they filmed states away from it. For example, in episode 2, they show that a location is "Stoughton, MA". I live in the town next to Stoughton, MA and drive through it very often. When they first showed it, I thought, "wow, that looks nothing like stoughton... but maybe it's some weird part I have somehow never seen..." but then they decided that there is now this HUGE bridge there that anyone local would know. I've never seen such a bridge, so I googlemapped it and googled it. There has never been any huge bridge in Stoughton, yet they used it as big evidence that that is where somehting *omited to stop spoiler* happened. They called it Sargent bridge. The only Sargent bridge (that I could find) is in Sargent, Nebraska. Nebraska isn't quite the same as MA... They should either not name places, be more vague, or name things the right thing. I love the show so far, but that one thing is very annoying. 207.206.238.173 (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is something very common with TV shows or films. e.g. sitcoms like 'Seinfeld' and 'Friends' are based in New York and filmed entirely in LA. 'Lost' shot in Hawaii and presented being near Fiji. Film 'Matador' goes around many towns and filmed mostly in Mexico. This depends on production limitations of respective makers. LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because getting to Vulcan or the future where robots rule with an iron fist and doughnuts rain down daily from the sky is just too hard to get to, even with a hybrid space-time machine (which some selfish fool neglected to invent for the purposes of Hollywood filming). It's television, not a documentary. - Hexhand (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is quite common. Myself, I chuckle because Reno 911 uses footage of the actual Reno, Nevada... but it is shot on locations throughought Los Angeles. My own 2 episodes were shot in San Fernando. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WHAT!!?? STAR WARS wasn't REALLY filmed on Tattooine and Hoth?? The DEATH STAR scenes weren't really on the Death Star?! Middle Earth was really New Zealand?! I'm heart broken! C'mon this is fiction. It was fun to go to CBS in California (decades ago) and watch the video taping of "Welcome Back Kotter", which is set in New York, with items on the shelves in the kitchen that were specific to the west coast and not usually found "back east".Greenbomb101 (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This response may be a bit harsh. It's easy to distinguish when a location in a distant solar system is fiction, but when a how seems to take great pains to spot stories in towns all around where you live, you can't help but run the TiVo back a few seconds and watch an establishing shot over again to try and figure out from where in the town adjacent to your office the shot is taken. Some of the shots look to be close to places in the Boston Metropolitan area, some seem to be backlot with Boston skyline CGI'ed over them. Is this show another Vancouver production, like most of the Scifi product? --tom (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

One boardroom scene purportedly set in Boston was filmed in the Seventh Regiment Armory in NYC- the regimental crest clearly visible on a paneled wall. I think the producers are having a little fun. Can you think of any other mystery/conspiracy series set in Boston?Saxophobia (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Addition of EL

I've taken a page from the [[4]] another Abrams' series was constructed (an FA), and added a categorization of the external links; to whit, I've added Massive Dynamic as an Official Tie-in. - Hexhand (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've modified it the format to be cleaner. No reason to separate it with only four links, and its already mentioned in the article, so changed label to match description for easier identification by readers. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that modification, as most users aren't really aware of what an ARG is, and likely don't care. As we have a precedent in the form of an FA that (thankfully) uses many of the same reality-blurring and viral marketing techniques that this article uses, I think we are on solid ground retaining the format I added. As well, Lost was only one example. Smallville - Hexhand uses that format as well. (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if you think opening an RfComment regarding this issue would help, I would participate in it. - Hexhand (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The precedent of one FA, which I presume you mean Lost (TV series) does NOT mean "you must apply to all." It is a case by case thing, any many other FAs that have similar tie-in sites do NOT separate or group the ELs (I should know, I've written them). Nor does it being FA mean it is always perfect. That EL section frankly looks like crap. Its bloated beyond all reason, and considering it passed FA in 2006, I'd be curious as to whether it would pass an FAR now. I would strongly suspect not due to the large amounts of unsourced content. Anyway, that is a game, it should be noted as a game for the site just like on the majority of FAs to avoid confusion. The game is discussed in the article. If people don't get what it is, they can follow the link. Alternatively, it can be just labeled Massive Dynamic game, and let them figure out what kind, but it is still a game and should be noted as such. I also think having four articles grouped into two groups also looks rather silly.

Clearly, you have issues with the way that two other articles (one of them an FA) represent external links. Your concerns as to the quality of those example (read: precedent) articles appears to be outside the scope of this article. While you feel it is a game, I am concerned that the average user visiting the article will be confused by the evaluation of the link as a game. The purpose of the game is to add a real-world dimension to the series, and serves as a tie-in to the series. It seems encyclopedic to include it. To not do so is beyond my ken, "or my Barbie, or all my action figures." - Hexhand (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Hexhand. Take a look at WP:WAX. You may wish to emulate how another article presented informations, and that is fine... but that they did it that way is not an arguable reason to do so, as each article must be considered on its own merits. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As for doing an RfC, why not give the other editors on the page time to way in first...then if there is still no consensus, you look at the options of 30 or RfC. Also, you seriously need to read WP:BRD and WP:OWN. You were bold, made an edit, and I changed it. Next comes discussion, not HexHand is going to revert anyone who dares change anything he wrote. That's annoying as heck and its displaying serious ownership issues. You kept reverting multiple editors edits to the Pilot article too, wiping out time consuming clean ups to references and every thing else. You are the one who needs to stop all the reverting every time you dislike someone modifying your edits and actually let a discussion take place.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

An RfC is a bit extreme when these can be discussed on the article's talk page and a consensus should be reached among the contributing editors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I disagree with your assertions as to the reasons for my reverts. I could apply similar interpretations of your behavior is seeking the deletion of the pilot (as well as any episode articles), but it's relatively moot. Considering that we have bumped heads before, it would seem wiser to discuss your reverts of my edits, so we can discuss matters and avoid temper tantrums. Since this article isn't about us, and you are keen to avoid talking to me regarding our interactions, perhaps our best interaction tool will be to not interact outside article discussions, and stick solely to the matter being discussed. In other words, we try to avoid reverting each other and seek instead to find consensus, which would seem (to me, at least) to be best way to avoid the friction until you can avoid the impulse to snap at me. - Hexhand (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

All major reversions should be discussed before they are made. If there is a disagreement that cannot be overcome, then don't revert. No need to bump heads and opinions. Ask outside the article for advice from a senior editor or Admin... and be willing to accept their decision. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Except, of course, that you also have reverted multiple experienced editors, multiple times, despite their explaining why you were wrong. You mass reverted clean ups on the Pilot article for no valid reasons. You kept reverting Bignole on the episode list when he was doing clean ups and fixes as well well. You need to stop and discuss if someone reverts you instead of continuing to just revert back to "your" version because you like it. That is the real issue. And sorry if you think I "snap" at you, but it is annoying as hell when an relatively inexperienced editor decides he knows better than no less than THREE experienced ones, at least two of which work extensively in television articles and have GAs, FAs, and FLs under their belt. Instead of just presuming you are right and everyone else is wrong, why not stop, discuss, and learn. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There are easier steps then an RfC. It could be time for an Admin to step in. This need not go to RfC if it can be dealt with beforehand. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I appreciate your input, and respect your right to express it, but is this article discussion really the appropriate place to point out what you feel are my personality deficits? Of course, the answer is no. If you wish to discuss this on my usertalk, you may do so with my blessing. This is not the place for this discussion. 'Focus on the edits, and not the editor', I believe is the common expression.- Hexhand (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for all parties. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You just removed part of the discussion I was going to respond to. It's in the page history, so I will not return it. The thing for both parties to do is ask about an edit or a reversion if it seems confusing. One must assume good faith that the other party is not making an edit just to ruin your work. Remember WP:OWN. Discussions are paramount to reaqching consensus... and no matter how many dozens or hundreds of hours an editor puts into an article, once he makes the edit it belongs to Wiki and not to him or her. I would gently and respectfully advise AGF from all parties editing the article... forgetting about any past perceptions of motivation or behavior. It would be a true pity if an Admin temp-blocked either of you from editing for coninued WP:ABF or banned either of you from working in this area in order to restore a WP:PEACE. Step back, take a deep breath... take another. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe slow down just a little bit

A short while ago, I added an image to the Media information section, noting in my edit summary: "added image with caption (will follow up with citation shortly)". Rather than actually wait for those sources to be added, the image was deleted less than nine minutes later. I have added it back in, with the promised connecting citations. And yes, the image is fair-use (promotional material). - Hexhand (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you ignore BRD. But whatever. The image adds no actual encyclopedic value to the article, and the minor two reviews do NOT meet fair use requirements. The image is not discussed critically, but is only vaguely included in a single reviewers complaints about the promotional images and a blog post. This image was already rejected on the pilot article, and it is just as invalid here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, you ignored the edit summary. If I say I am going to add connecting material, do yourself a favor and believe it. Maybe you could simply stop stalking my edits and grow up. I am at a loss as to why you feel I am going to be convinced by you edit-warring; I can assure you it isn't. Now, either stop beating the dead horse of our past interaction or find somewhere else to edit until you can cool down. For my part, I am sorry for assuming bad faith initially, but you are fostering it all by your lonesome now. Before you end up blocked or worse, i ask you to please chill the hell out, and interact politely and constructively. I am told that you aren't always like this, and that you do good work, and that I should give you more good faith. Please stop proving them wrong, okay?

Now, that unpleasantness aside, let's discuss the info. The image, without discussion, would be unencyclopedic (dcorative). However, when one adds info explaining and connecting its presence, then it is no longer unencyclopedic - abracadabra!. And let's remove the skewing, shall we? The image was removed from the pilot article (which you've nom'd for deletion twice) because its presence was weaker there, and I agree with its removal from there. It is more about the series anyway.

As to promo materials being used in articles before, that's a no-brainer - they are. All the time. - Hexhand (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, thanks for moving the image up somewhat. It looks better there. :) - Hexhand (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk about a back handed apology. No one is stalking your edits. Like you, I have this page on my watchlist *gasp* Your are the cause for these bad interactions. You revert anyone who dares to change your edits, showing an insane amount of ownership, despite multiple people telling YOU to chill out. You make personal attacks all over the place, filed a blatantly false 3RR report against me in an attempt to get my blocked for actually doing what I do, edit. I have no fears over being blocked over my edits. You are the one who is refusing to take sensible advice left to you by multiple experienced editors, but instead want to act like an ass, to be blunt. I'm not the one who needs to "grow up" and I can assure you I am quite grown up. You are the only one beating a dead horse, refusing to allow me to do any edits to this article, despite my vast experience on television articles compared to your relative none. You did the same to Bignole, well known in the entertainment articles as an expert editor in these areas. Instead, you just decide you are right and attempt to start edit wars rather than actually follow BRD, which is you make the edit, and if someone reverts, you STOP and discuss. Not revert and make personal attacks and ridiculous claims of stalking, bad faith, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I will probably simply have to ignore you. I'm pretty sure that I haven't offended Bignole, but clearly I've offended you. Maybe the 3RR complaint was ill-made; it was my first one to make on you. You were edit-warring, though, and you have enough experience to know how genuinely stupid it is to do that instead of simply talking about your edits. When the only edits you make to the article are to revert my edits, well, some call that stalking.

Tell you what, I will re-boot my good faith, and offer you another chance to let. go. of. the. past.). Maybe you are picking up on how im portant I feel discussion is. Maybe resepct that a little and discuss whenyou have a problem with my edits. It isn't ownership; its trying to understand your explicit problems with edits I make that aren't fully understood in the 2 lines available in an edit summary.

Just be polite, stop the attacks and focus on discussing the edits. I will do the same. Thinking you are justified to be unpleasantly is not going to end well, and I think you know that. Just stop, reboot and let's try to interact politely and professionally. - Hexhand (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but all your "reboots" and other comments are pure BS when you turn around and again attack me on two other pages. And no, that isn't stalking. Go read the stalking guidelines, or check the damn history and you'll see I've been on this article for far longer than you. You are the only one edit warring here and you are the one who is making personal attacks instead of just asking someone to explain why they revert or change your edits. You have YET to do that. Instead, you immediately revert, then go to the talk and make lengthy personal attacks. You haven't made an effort to be polite, WP:AGF anywhere here, or do anything but be nasty in every remark you make, and act in a completely hostile and contractry nature. You reverted my actually fixing your typos, obviously not even bothering to look at anything anymore but just reverting because I was the one who made the edit. Yet you claim I'm the one who is acting in bad faith. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your point, though I disagree with your interpretation. Now, what is it going to take for you to be satisfied and let the matter settle down, then? - Hexhand (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Marketing link

Since the two links added to note the marketing poster have been marked (sans discussion) as unreliable, I've since added a citation speaking to the images, which was reverted - again, without discussion - claiming that it didn't connect to the text. In order to avoid the likelihood that adding yet another citation would be reverted (it is a different story from the same source), I am presenting it here. Take a look and let's see if that stops the reverting. - Hexhand (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, you are trying to present the interpretation of the poster arts as it links with the series, and their perception by reviewers. Now the two links from TV Week that you have presented talk about the marketing strategies taken up by the producers, but do not particularly comment on the art of the material or how it relates with storyline. They can be excellent links for marketing information, but I fail to see their use in the context you have mentioned. LeaveSleaves (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the third, fifth and eighth paragraph of the link in my earlier post. - Hexhand (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Third paragraph - "A series of images—such as a six-fingered hand—designed to reflect the show’s extreme-science theme." Nothing particularly new there.

Fifth paragraph - "We love the mysterious aspects of what ‘fringe science’ means. We’re trying to add some levels of mystery to the marketing", don't know what to make of that.

Eighth paragraph - "the network has already started plastering promotional posters for the show–so-called “wild” posters–", too limited a perception. Wild doesn't exactly signifies anything particular. LeaveSleaves (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that all three parts equal something more reliable. - Hexhand (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing reliability. In fact, those references might be useful for marketing information. But I don't see how they fit in commenting on the art of those posters. LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If the text describes the image, and the image is useful to expanding what the text is discussing, then the image isn't decorative, and in fact is useful. Thoughts? - Hexhand (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what the reason behind using images is. But a description shouldn't simply mention what's in the picture, but also justify the significance of that image in respect with the article's subject. LeaveSleaves (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Okay, I am pretty sure I have something regarding that, and will make sure it is more specific, even though I still feel this is okay. - Hexhand (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Pilot question

Does the aired version differ much from the earlier version (which was leaked and reviewed in a few places online)? This might be off topic, if it is, a link to info answering this would be appreciated. Thanks. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable citation that suggests otherwise? That would be terrific! - Hexhand (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A couple scenes were added to the finished product that weren't in the leaked version. Also, the part on the airplane is less explicit in the aired version. The music is completely different in the leaked version and is mainly music from Lost and Alias. However, this is all my own OR so we can't really include it. Jackieboy87 (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot

The plot needs to be reworked, as it is solely about the pilot (which still has its own article). The plot should revolve around the premise of the series, not the pilot itself. That would appear to be a group of people investigating phenomenae on the fringe of science. It should be noted that the usage of "fringe science" as an entity is an inaccruate usage. All pseudoscience outside the mainstram is considered fringe, as per the article on "fringe science". Thoughts? - Hexhand (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of Plot there's now a Premise section, but instead of describing the premise it outlines the plot of the series. A premise is the basic concept around which the show revolves (i.e. a secret FBI division deals with cases involving fringe science) and not the entire plot of the series. 173.24.66.108 (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Reception Question

I see the "Parents Television Council" linked to from the "Reception" section of the article. Who are they? How is that not link spam? BOTF (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks aren't linkspam. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Fringe on Fox". Worst TV Show of the Week. Parents Television Council. 2008-9-22. Retrieved 2008-09-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

And neither are refs. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So say I run a fan site for the show and write a review. I could quote it and "ref" it and you couldn't delete it as spam? BOTF (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It'd be deleted as an unreliable source, that and spam since you're deliberately trying to include your fansite through roundabout means. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'm sure you've had this conversation many times, so sorry for bringing it up (again). I don't disagree with you, I just think you need to put "Parents Television Council" in the same category as you do the theoretical fan site. BOTF (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And to that I give this simple comparison: Parents Television Council is an article with 106 different refs and unquestionably notable. Can you fansite say the same? — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying if the owners of the fan site neglected to create an article for their fan site and scatter dozens of references to themselves throughout Wikipedia, then they don't rate? BOTF (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That very comment shows you have no concept of what reliability and notability mean. Read up on WP:RS and WP:N. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. I'm good. Strange idea, this concept that the Wikipedia comparison is the alpha and omega, but it's your world boss. BOTF (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

The site : Parentstv: http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/faqs/main.asp has been doing this for 10 years and the press has been quoting them : http://news.google.ca/news?rlz=1B3GGGL_frCA268CA268&hl=en&q=Parents%20Television%20Council&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn so a mention that the Parents Television Council has called it the "Worst of the week" is not uncalled for. However, making sure opinions from others are mentioned are needed to balance things out. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Observer

I have removed two-to-three lines of speculative content, all unsourced. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, if one wishes the speculation to be re-added, you must cite a reliable source.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 05:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A userbox for all of us observers... –xeno (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Code	Result
{{User:UBXeno/Fringe}}	This user watches Fringe.	Usage
{{User:Xenocidic/Fringe}}	This user considers themself to be an observer of "the Pattern".	Usage

Added {{usbk}} for each Fringe userbox. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers

This article should have a spoiler alert, as the plot synopsis contains spoilers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.148.222 (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPOILER. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 12:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

B-class

Has anyone else noticed that this artice is above start class? I was thinking about changing but I decided to consult the talk page first. Hda3ku (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't quite B-class yet. Work is primarily needed in the area of production and casting. ^LeaveSleaves 19:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

C class, at least. –xeno (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Viral Marketing

The observer is featured, even if just for a split second, in each episode of Fringe. During the Eagles-Giants Playoff game, the observer was shown on screen deliberately by FOX to market the show. [[5]] - Gatty790 (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

John Scott / Mark Valley moving on ( ? )

See http://seattlepi.com/tvguide/399635_tvgif11.html , this may help to prop up the recent edit by the IP removing Mark Valley as a regular cast member. –xeno (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This reports the same info, but I don't know how reliable that site is. We should probably wait to see if he's still credited for the remainder of the season before we remove him as a main cast member. After all, the pilot for the new show could easily not be picked up. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 15:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I was actually just going to rv the IP's edit since we don't know if John Scott will appear in future episodes (he's still in the lab at Massive Dynamic, no?), but perhaps he wasn't in the credits for ep 14 (not sure). Thoughts? –xeno (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, he wasn't credited in ep14 (I just checked on hulu) so I guess he's off the show now. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 15:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Valley was not credited in Ability. But I think he still should be included in infobox. Most TV series articles consist of main cast included in the infobox, even after they are left the show. ^LeaveSleaves 15:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it "telling" that he wasn't credited, or is it normal where a regular character doesn't appear in an episode not to be credited? –xeno (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Regular actors that are billed are usually always credited whether they appear in the episode or not. The immediate samples I can think of are 30 Rock and Lost. ^LeaveSleaves 15:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

← I augmented the IP's edit, tweak as desired. –xeno (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need for that. It's almost always unclear that once a character/cast member has left the series if s/he might reappear. That doesn't need to be said. Again taking a Lost example, Michelle Rodriguez dropped out of main cast in season 2 but she appeared again, latest in season 5's second episode. ^LeaveSleaves 15:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My initial reaction was to just rv the IPs edit altogether, do you think that's the best way to go about it? It's the "was credited" part that concerns me - as you said - the character may pop back up in a flashback, or be "re-animated" (that Dr. Bishop is a clever kook). –xeno (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just think this need not be mentioned here. Such things can be otherwise be incorporated in List of Fringe characters. We should try and stay away from adding plot details into the cast section. ^LeaveSleaves 15:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've rv back to the original text for now. –xeno (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fringe

Το Fringe ειναι μια Αμερικανικη τηλεοπτικη σειρα. Μεταδιδεται επο τη FOX και ειναι γραμμενη απο τον J. J. Abrams. Αυτη η σειρα βασιζεται στις Ακρεες Επιστιμες Fringe Sience.Η σειρα επισης ανφεραιτε σε μια ομαδα του FBI η οποια ερευνα υποθεσεις σχετικες με τις ακρεες επιστιμες ,δηλαδι (τηλεμεταφορα, σπανιες ασθενειες, ψθχικες ικανοτητες κ.α) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.199.75 (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Unearthed

The 21st episode is not part of season 1. It is the 11th episode of season 2. See the episode sequence on Hulu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.192.97 (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Differences between Fringe's home and parallel universes

Some fairly extensive notation of the differences between Fringe's home universe and its parallel universe was destroyed on Fringepedia in a fit of ownership behavior by one of its admins. I've rescued it to my userspace. I'm not sure I see a place for it in the article and am furthermore not sure whether it would be WP:OR or merely something appropriately derived from primary sources. Still, thought I'd note it here in case anyone wanted to guide the information to a new home. WCityMike 18:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Has a point of divergence between the universes been determined yet (date/event)? I presume that if one New York has "Manhattan", and the other has "Manhatan", the point of divergence would have to pre-date the New Amsterdam. samwaltz (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Comic

The comic spin off is mentioned, without name, without any form of link that can eventually lead to the article about it. Its currently a black hole, this needs to be rectified.

I've read the page, followed links and I still have absolutely no clue regarding the comic....not its name, not its plot, nada and the comic finished being released last year already?? !!

196.209.78.207 (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)borgrel

The Man Who Fell to Earth

Drawing any parallels between the two might be WP:OR, but it is perhaps worth mentioning that Thomas Jerome Newton shares a name with the lead character from the novel The Man Who Fell to Earth and the better-known movie of the same name, starring David Bowie in the lead role - it's not be the first time Abrams has done something like this. Thoughts? --Kaini (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've recently noted this in a few of Fringe's episode articles. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 04:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Uk channels

Does anyone know what channel this is on in the UK (England specifically)? I used to watch it on Sky 1 but the show isnt even on their website anymore (or Sky Player). Please, I dont want to miss any of Walter's funny comments! Walternat 14:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

4th season

J Wyman has confirmed a 4th season renewal through twitter but looking for a better source for now. --MASEM (t) 01:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

THANK GOD. :D I found this [6] and [7] and [8] so far. Ruby2010 talk 01:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Ruby2010. Some kinda weird edit conflict I think. Rehevkor ✉ 02:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries :) Just happy the show got a renewal! Ruby2010 talk 02:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I admit I am more relieved than anything. Rehevkor ✉ 02:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic news, hopefully it'll be confirmed soon. Rehevkor ✉ 01:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation in several places. Looking for ep count and time slot, but not expecting diff from 22 and friday night. But still ... I do hope the Fox execs give some nice words on why they renewed it to add here. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone knows list of toxins?

If someone has seen the serial back and forth several times, could they prepare a list of fictional toxins (poisons/chemical weapons/mutagens) etc. and add it to the List of fictional toxins page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aforaseem (talk • contribs) 08:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Mythos article

I'm considering if we have enough - in both content and from reliable secondary sources, to create a Mythology of Fringe article comparable to Mythology of Lost. We certainly have:

• The parallel universe
• Cortexiphan
• ZFT
• Shapeshifters
• Amber
• Massive Dynamic

and probably a handful more that I'm missing at the moment. I'm looking at key elements that, within the various Fringe-related articles, we can then link to to avoid having to explain these each first-use time.

Any suggestions? --MASEM (t) 18:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget the doomsday machine! And I'm in favor of helping create such an article, so long as it is better sourced than the Mythology of Lost article (which is a mess in my opinion). Good idea! Ruby2010 talk 18:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I would support the creation of such an article. I would add “The Pattern” and the Observers to this list. --Loremaster (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Starting drafting at User:Masem/Mythology of Fringe. Feel free to add. I want to try to make sure we're sourcing as much as possible, ideally hitting some of the concept/creation points (eg the world building aspect of the parallel universe). --MASEM (t) 23:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Recurring Characters List Needs to be Expanded

Just to mention that a few recurring characters of importance are the 2 or 3 people established as having Cortexiphan-induced "fringe" abilities in Season One, who cross over to the other universe in the final episodes of Season 2 with the "infiltration team" led by Olivia and Walter. Does that count as "recurring" if it's 2-3 episodes only?204.92.65.10 (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No, as they're not really talked about in the narrative beyond those few episodes (As opposed to, say, Bell, who while only appearing in 5-6 episodes (including flashbacks), is a constant presence in the series). If we start counting every character that shows up twice, this list starts getting way too long. (If anything, I'd argue for culling the list down, particularly with many of the first season elements that have never resurfaced) --MASEM (t) 00:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Potential to add, looking for better fringe connection

John Noble's hosting a new show related to "fringe science" on the Science channel. [9]. I'd like better confirmation that John was picked for this specifically because he plays Walter on Fringe to assure that its a legacy thing. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add fringe is about to start airing on the science channel - which I cannot wait for because I can't catch the time slot they have it on now and no DVR for me :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.86.138.178 (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think september appears in every episode.

the photo caption says that he does. S*K*A*K*K 15:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you been watching very closely? http://fringepedia.net/wiki/The_Observer –xeno^talk 16:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

An Observer does appear in every episode, but it's unlikely it's actually Michael Cerveris (September's portrayer) that is actually playing the role as he is not credited unless he makes a worthy appearance. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)