Talk:List of Fringe episodes

Duplicate?

Sorry - I don't know how to do this, but isn't this info coverd here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_%28season_2%29? And why is it always US based with no UK info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.109.173 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Common source for airdates

Is TV Guide a valid source? In terms of original airing of the episodes, only the network related sites are generally considered valid source. LeaveSleaves (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the network site is not the only site considered a valid source for original air dates. Any RS site that provides the information clearly is usable. TV Guide is a valid source, as long as it is clearly marking the episodes as first aired/new (and it can always be backed up with the printed guides if someone wanted to really get happy and quote them all LOL). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So, we treat TVGuide in a similar fashion as Imdb, in that its a good tertiary source of material, to be replaced by more comprehensive sources when possible? I see some differences, such as the fact that TVGuide does have editorial oversight and reliable reviews. Can you explain why it isn't as good a source? - Hexhand (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, that isn't what I meant. I was being slightly facetious with the last bit and I guess that caused confusion. We treat tv.com like IMDB, but tvguide.com is backed by a published, very well established magazine and is a reliable source. Other than the user edited portions of the site, so long as it is clear that an airing of an episode is the first airing on the page, it is a perfectly reliable source for airdates. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's little food for thought. During last season's strike, I've observed instances when TV.com and TV Guide announced episode airdates and synopsis and maintained them even though they weren't announced on network media sites. LeaveSleaves (talk)

Thanks for the clarification, AnmaFinotera. :)

And that the sites seemed to have secret (?) info is creepy. Almost like they were using telepathy or some such. ;) - Hexhand (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the synopsis for the pilot so long?

Really, it isn't necessary, what with an actual article on the pilot currently linked to the article? Other examples, such as Smallville Season 1 Episodes or Stargate SG-1 season 1 episodes reflect a brevity that such lists would seem to warrant. - Hexhand (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It was cut down and merged here when the article was deleted. Agreed, it can be shorter here and this longer version moved to the main article as it is closer to meeting the length requirements. The one here should be 100-300 words. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the version there isn't really good enough to be ported over to the pilot article, but I am glad that we agree that the synopsis here should be shorter. I'll set to it. - Hexhand (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(update) I shortened it to 65 words. - Hexhand (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be at least 100 words and should still include the major plot points, including the ending. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For my own edification, where are you finding these criteria (esp. word count), AnmaFinotera? I am concerned about putting too many of the plot points in what is supposed to be an extremely brief summary. It isn't as if the pilot article is going to be deleted (if the number of 'Keep' votes is any indication). - Hexhand (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSTV - the television Manual of Style, episode list section. Plot summaries are supposed to be "brief" summaries, but also complete. We aren't here to do teasers, and we shouldn't force people to go read the Pilot article just to find out the brief summary of the entire episode. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I've expanded the summary to 117 words. What do you think? - Hexhand (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Better, but having read the whole summary, it still feels like a teaser. The ending is missing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What ending do you feel it is missing, AnmaFinotera? - Hexhand (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Partner betrayed, killed suspect (or suspects brother, I wasn't clear on that one). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting, for sanity's sake) I know it sounds odd, but it seems incidental when describing the larger plot issues that seem more pertinent. - Hexhand (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering what happened to the plot summary of the pilot I wrote...now I know. I hate when the episode summary is shortened, and no ending is given, which is why I wrote that one. Put it back in, or re-write it to include the details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.103.48.20 (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It was removed because it was too long, anon. In episode lists, especially those with actual articles, brevity is key. They need to cover the main plot points and then stop. While I agree with you that some sort of little bit needs to reflect the betrayal of Dunham's partner. Note I said a little bit, not a paragraph. :) Hope that helps to explain matters. - Hexhand (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And now why the heck did my summary for the 2nd episode get deleted?? I know formatting and overall flow was not great, but I was hoping someone could just clean it up, not get rid of it. Do I need a Wikipedia PHD or membership to be able to contribute...don't shut me out because I'm new...teach and encourage.--Johnnycyberpunk (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, it was initially tagged as non-notable and then redirected (as noted here) two minutes later, which is not the same as being deleted, but serves the same practical purpose of removing the text. While I personally despise redirection wothout discussion - and there was none here - the article was in very, very bad shape. If you wish the article to return, I would suggest that you use your sandbox to create a better version of the article, cleaning up, formatting and trimming down the plot. Once that is done, you can approach the topic again. Something that I have learned (the hard way, unfortunately) is that there are people who think all tv episode articles are non-notable. For that reason, the articles need to be really well-done. Why don't you contact me on my usertalk page, and I will help you learn hw to write an acceptable article. As a head start, check out WP:FA#Media These are the articles that Wikipedia considers to be the best-written. Those are the articles you need to aspire to emulate. I look forward to hearing from you. :) - Hexhand (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Episode 6 - "The Cure" - October 21, 2008

It says: "A woman diagnosed with a rare disease vanishes from the hospital and resurfaces in Massachusetts, now emitting deadly radiation." These two women weren't in the hospital, they were out patients. Also, was is the name of the "rare disease" that the two woman had? 4.240.159.103 (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The disease was Bellas Lymphoma... I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidfarel (talk • contribs) 05:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bellini's Lymphosemia, actually. Probably mean to sound like Lymphoma.Sch-u740 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Professor in Bound

As mentioned in the episode, the first professor killed is an established immunologist who is offered a job at CDC to work on epidemics. I don't think describing him as epidemiologist is correct. ^LeaveSleaves 13:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fox [1] [2] refers to him as an epidemiologist, as do Olivia and co. when talking about him in the episode. That's why I changed it. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 14:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I know the Fox sources mention it, but I'm trying to interpret things from the episode. And there he is introduced as immunologist and there is only mention of him as epidemiologist after they find out that he had received the said job offer. ^LeaveSleaves 14:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ability details

Wouldn't it be presumptuous to say that Walter wrote the script? I mean it is clear that the typewriter was used to write it, but that shouldn't necessarily mean he wrote it. In such case, he would have had some recollection of it. Plus it could be William Bell, his former lab partner, who wrote it. Anyways, I don't want to get into theories here, but I think it isn't correct to write that Walter wrote the manuscript. ^LeaveSleaves 13:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is never stated that it could have been Walter, and it's merely an assumption. There are a number of people (including Bell) who could have done it, so I'm going to elimate the part about Walter.Sch-u740 (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Episode 15 - April 7, 2009

I've included an entry regarding episode 15, as our readers I'm sure will be wondering when it is airing - seeing as how there's a nearly 2 month break in episodes. Source: http://www.fox.com/fringe/features/widgets.htm . –xeno (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

When I said the episode is non-existent, I meant that there is no existing information about the next hearing except for a possible date which in all likelihood would be changed. In such situation I find it inappropriate to simply put in a TBA line for such or any further episodes. ^LeaveSleaves 18:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, the next air date looks pretty solid to me (see the source). I came here this morning looking for information about the next episode, and finding none, researched and added it myself. Is there a guideline that speaks to this? –xeno (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the only policy would be WP:V. If you have seen the promo of upcoming episode it just says April. And a widget is usually serves as teaser and can hardly be considered a definite source. Moreover, I feel as an encyclopedic list, it'd be more appropriate if we add the episode when we have substantial verified information, e.g. the episode name etc. This list is not exactly widget like that on FOX's site and shouldn't just tease with the possible next air date with no other details. ^LeaveSleaves 19:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that some information is better than no information. As I said, I was left wanting this morning when I came to see when the next episode would be. The fact that the air date "might change" doesn't sway me in the least: we report what we have available from reliable sources and if things change, then we change them when they do. Perhaps raise this at WT:EPISODE if you still disagree. –xeno (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't care the least if that info is kept and have no intention of pursuing the matter. I believed that insufficient and possibly indefinite information might be misleading and hence removed it once. If someone else feels like removing it, I have provided my reasoning above. ^LeaveSleaves 19:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sought further opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Future episodes where only an air date is known. –xeno (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the episode should not be included, unless a title or some other detail is known about it. There are several shows that run straight through without repeats (e.g. Lost), and it is not customary to list all upcoming episodes just because they will air on the same night every week for however many weeks. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 19:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason I feel it should be listed is because there is such a large gap in between the episodes (its not a case of just plugging in a line for "next tuesday's episode" as you allude to, as the episode is nearly 2 months away). Readers will come here wondering when the next episode will be and since we know, why not tell them? –xeno (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) So mention it in the prose, e.g. "Fringe is currently on hiatus and will return April 7, 2009 with seven new episodes." --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 19:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a fine compromise to me. Leaves? –xeno (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't really have an opinion on these. I more or less stand on my judgment above. I don't believe a teaser line is really needed here nor do I believe is this list intention to provide such info. Shows going on hiatus is not an unusual thing. And I also find it hard to believe that viewers choose Wikipedia as a priority source of information, ahead of the FOX website and other fan/mythology sites that have sprung up in last few months. ^LeaveSleaves 20:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

← So just leave 'em hanging without reporting information available to us? I use Wikipedia as the first stop for information about TV shows. –xeno (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The compromise is fine with me. I also echo the sentiment that "TBA" listings just don't look that good in an encyclopedic list. It'll have a title soon enough, so it can wait until then. If people don't find what they want here, they'll look elsewhere. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You can view an offical fox.com episode list at http://fringewiki.fox.com/page/Episode+1.16+Unleashed including a few upcoming names which I just added to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.219.223 (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Explanations

Could there be an episode column for each episode? The explanations are usually short and easy to miss, and would be helpful for anyone who missed/didn't fully understand them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidfarel (talk • contribs) 05:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There could be some trouble citing them. I think the summaries are enough, as recaps for nearly every episode can be found on other sites.Sch-u740 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Number of episodes?

We've been see-sawing over the number of episodes with ranges from 20 through 22... Our source for the "full season" is here: http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/watch_with_kristin/b32011_fringe_gets_full_season.html which says Fox picked up "an additional 9 episodes" - but do we have a source for how many episodes there were before that fact? The commercial says Fringe is to return in April with 7 new episodes (14 have aired, so that makes 21). So, dunno. –xeno (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Kristin assumed that Fringe got the industry standard initial order of 13 episodes and would get 9 more. However, since Fox has now said they we'll only be getting 7 more, then there will most likely be 21 episodes, with one carried over to next season. This would make sense because the new Osbournes show sneak peek is airing March 31, which leaves 7 Tuesdays left until the end of May sweeps. So, we should probably say 21 episodes. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the initial announcement on confirmation of full season indicated 22 episodes ([3], [4]), but your information about the advertisement does confuse the matter. But I think we'd need a source for saying 21 episodes. Or may be they are having a two-hour finale. Too much guessing here. ^LeaveSleaves 21:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are better refs, at least. cheers, –xeno (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

According to J. R. Orci's twitter account, there will be 20 episodes. The policy on reliable sources allows self-published sources for these situations so I'm going to be bold and update the article, citing the twitter (I think it's "tweet" technically) directly. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 18:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Twitter? Seriously? I find this highly irregular to cite personal status on a social networking site of one of the writers on the series as a source for the information. If it really is going to be 20 (or 21 or whatever), let's just wait a little until more appropriate sources come to light. ^LeaveSleaves 18:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I know it sounds crazy, but it's a self-published source, equivalent to if he put the info on his personal website. All that really matters is who said it, not where he said it. In the past, posts to personal blogs (including Facebook) have been used to add information on television shows such as Heroes, The Office, and Lost. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 19:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal website or blogs are a different matter but current status as source is extremely odd and can't be called invariable or even reliable. Plus I saw the link and there is no explicit indication as to what the statement is referring to. We are just assuming that it's about the episodes. ^LeaveSleaves 19:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, the twitter thing is a bit of a stretch. –xeno (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Road Not Taken

I changed "Boston street" to "New York street." I'm pretty sure it was NYC. Can someone confirm/deny? also, I added that Sharpe was shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sch-u740 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct because it is on a New York street when Susan Pratt exploded. --68.37.66.81 (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Something is wrong with "Ability"

For some reason, the episode Ability is formatted wrong, and I can't figure out how to fix it. If anyone knows how to fix this , please do.75.60.94.33 (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone forgot to close a wikilink. It's been corrected. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There's More Than One of Everything

A lot of contributors seeem to want to expand on the fascinating revelations of this episode with suggestions of what they imply. However, this article is meant to be a conscice overview of each Fringe episodes. Therefore, let's keep it as simple as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Night of Deserable Objects

The episode "Night of Deserable Objects" is scheduled to air on September 24, so please don't erase it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.66.81 (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Should we put an astrick next to "plot episodes"?

Should we denote plot episodes in a similar fashion to The X-Files? These would be episodes that contribute to the overall mythology (like alternate demensions and ZFT and what not, but I would not consider the John Scott sotryline to be part of that). The episodes would be, I think, The Arrival, In Which we Meet Mr. Jones, The Equasion, Safe, Bound, Ability, The Inner Child, Bad Dreams, Midnight, The Road Not Taken, There's More Than One of Everything. J52y (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The John Scott episodes are definitely part of the series mythology. He's definitely somehow involved with the ZFT/parallel universe arc. In the later episodes involving him, he is shown to be directly involved with ZFT related events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.125.196 (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Transcluding

If we're going to have separate pages for the individual seasons, then we may as well transclude the episode list tables onto the main episode page. This will save editors from having to duplicate the information so that the season pages and the episode pages are consistent with one another. It doesn't really make sense to have two lots of identical information anyway, it'll be easier this way. It's been done on the Lost and True Blood pages and it makes much more sense. If anyone has any major objections to this, here's the place to sound off. If not, I'll transclude the pages in a couple of days. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Now whenever someone makes an edit on the season page, both pages will be updated automatically. This way people don't have to keep editing both. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Glyph codes

Did you notice the leaf, frog, butterfly, smoke, or apple before the commercial breaks? I think we should add them because they are important to the series. I provided a link for the section. 68.37.66.81 (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Unearthed" Should be Episode 1.21, not 2.11

Fox has officially labeled the episode "Unearthed" (which aired on Jan. 11th, 2010) as episode 1.21. Source http://www.thefutoncritic.com/listings.aspx?id=20100101fox07&date=01/11/10. Should this page be updated to match? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.28.58 (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it is very confusing to put this episode as 2.11, and the one that comes after as 2.12. That one should be 2.11, and this one shouldn't be in 2nd season, but 1st.67.212.1.16 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It was produced for season one, but never aired. They're probably showing it now because there is a followup with Glen Brown, who I think is the priest that Walter argues with, in the following episode. How it is important enough to make them air this episode will just have to be seen, but yes, this episode does actually belong in season 1, and Johari Window/Edina City Limits should take the place as episode 11, consistent with Fox' designation FR-211.Divinus (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's confusing to put it as 1.21, as Fox has labeled it as the 11th episode of the second season. Johari Window is the 12th episode on the Fringe official site: http://www.fox.com/fringe/recaps/s2_e12.htm I think in most cases the airing order is more important than the production order. //Ephief (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the airing order should be preserved. I do think that the episode should be labeled 1.21 to keep it consistent with the show, but all other sources are labeling it as 2.11. Leave it to fox to mess everything up... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.162.68 (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree having "Unearthed" in the season 2 page makes no sense. We should leave it as 1.21 on the season one page where it belongs. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it belongs to season one, but as 1.21 it doesn't make any sense at all, there is no continuity with the season finale (1.20). This is madness (by FOX, I mean)!--Sid-Vicious (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's better to leave it in the 2nd Season. Either that, or somehow tag it as a lost ep from season one. Because making it Season 1 episode 21 makes no sense as that couldn't possibly be the correct order either. It's clear that Episode 20 is the season 1 finale and that the season 2 premiere is a continuation from episode 20. Sticking in the lost episode as episode 21 breaks that continuity. I have no idea where in the timeline of season 1 the lost episode was supposed to fit in. Maybe it was episode 15.1 or something. But I think keeping it in season two is the better of the two options (superior to sticking it after season 1 finale.)Marshalvinny (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think reality should weigh in a little here, it was broadcast during season 2, it is, by it's very existence, a season two show. The notes and production designation can stay as they are but even Fox can't change the reality of the situation, it's Original Broadcast date makes it a season two show. If anyone saw it and comes to look up the episode to see why Charlie suddenly appears, odds are they are not going to look in Season One. Also, does anyone have the Season One DVD? Is this in the Season One DVD? Padillah (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So, is this episode part of the 22-episode order for Season 2, despite the fact that FOX has stated that it's a Season 1 episode? Or is it considered as a "bonus" episode? Kyle Nin (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a question for entertainment lawyers, not us. The fact remains that it was broadcast in Season 2 and therefore it should be listed in the Season 2 line-up. I think the compromise of listing it, but without an episode number, should suffice. Padillah (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The easiest solution would be to consider (relabel) episode Unearthed as 2.01. That way the season One Finale stays the same, and the order of episodes after episode Unearthed in Season Two is preserved. So the first episode after Unearthed, which is initially labeled 2.12, stays 2.12, the episodes 2.13 to 2.15 stay 2.13 to 2.15, and the episode that airs now after the march break, on Apr 1st stays 2.16. Only episodes 2.01-2.10 (initially labeled) should be relabelled as 2.02-2.11. That is simply the most logical and rational solution, I think. Plus, a title 'Unearthed' is a strong enough title to open a new season. And after the season is 'uneathed', then come 'new day' and 'night of desirable objects'... 69.172.70.2 (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

boring colors

stupid idea i know but diffrent season colors the grey ones are kinda unapealing :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.197.17 (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for Episodes?

Why aren't there any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.241.223 (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Season 3 Premiere Title

The title of the premiere episode of season 3 is "Olivia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.213.61 (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Region 4 DVDs

The current date for the Region 4 DVDs in Australia is wrong for Season 2 as they got delayed to 10 November 2010. As a couple of examples I've listed Ezy DVD (http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/813709) and JB Hi-Fi (http://www.jbhifionline.com.au/dvd/dvd-genres/drama-romance/fringe-season-2/576794 please remember the date is listed first then the month and year in Australia). I mention it here rather than edit it myself is I'm unsure how to undo and do complicated footnotes. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out; it turns out the previous reference provided updated to 10 November, too. However, it's not necessary to reference a date that has come to pass; the Wikipedia policy is verifiability, and since the actual release date can be verified once it has actually been released, it's not necesary to reference it. The reference would only be needed for a date pending. KnownAlias contact 20:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Season 4 Episodes

There's a press release at TVbytheNumbers from FOX and it lists "Wallflower" as episode 7 (also all of the names and dates of episodes for the month of November). I'll admit I don't know how to edit tables. If anyone is interested that can edit it the information can be found there. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation of titles on episode articles

Are we really having an article called Peter (Fringe)? That is just a horrible, horrible way to disambiguate. The most obvious referent for that title would not be the episode at all, but the character of Peter Bishop. What's wrong with using "(Fringe episode)" as the disambiguator? It is pretty clear that for episodes titled things like "Peter" and "Olivia" that should be the case, and if you want consistency, then it should be "(Fringe episode)" for all of them. john k (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This would be against Wikipedia's policy on disambiguating episode articles. This is an older way of doing things and all episodes using that method of disambiguation were changed to what you see now a couple of years ago. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Like SchrutedIt said, the standard is to not put "episode" in the article title. Also, you should really gain consensus before you move articles;t here's really no point in posting a message here and then moving the articles anyway. The hatnote at the top of Peter (Fringe) and Olivia (Fringe) made it pretty easy to navigate if readers were looking for the character articles. Ruby 2010/2013 01:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've moved them back until we reach consensus on the issue. Ruby 2010/2013 01:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not a justification. The rule you are advocating results in nonsensical article titles. It ought very clearly to be changed. john k (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No, wait, what you are saying is actually just completely wrong - this is not, in fact, what the TV naming guideline (which is not a policy) says. From WP:NC-TV:

Where an episode title is the same as a character or object from the series which has its own page, disambiguate further using the word "episode".

The episode title "Peter" is the same as the character Peter, who has his own page at Peter Bishop. As such, we should disambiguate further using the word episode. So the current titles violate general disambiguation and naming policies as well as the specific naming guidelines that you claimed support your position. john k (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

plagiarism?

The movie INK was released in January 2009 and shows the connection of events that lead to a particular conclusion. Season 3, Episode 3 "The Plateau" duplicates the scenario. 71.100.20.6 (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"The connection of events that lead to a particular conclusion"? What you just described is called a "story". Many television episodes have these so-called "stories" and the P-Word never factors into it. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Fringe episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131218051110/http://mpse.org/golden-reel-awards/past-awards/2012-awards/2012-golden-reel-awards-television/ to http://mpse.org/golden-reel-awards/past-awards/2012-awards/2012-golden-reel-awards-television/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131231022633/http://mpse.org/golden-reel-awards/past-awards/2013-awards/2013-television/ to http://mpse.org/golden-reel-awards/past-awards/2013-awards/2013-television/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081212052838/http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=3410 to http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=3410
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5zZXRcj1U?url=http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/06/01/2010-11-season-broadcast-primetime-show-viewership-averages/94407/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/06/01/2010-11-season-broadcast-primetime-show-viewership-averages/94407/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)