Fringepedia:Ideas

From Fringepedia - The FRINGE wiki

The place for discussions about improving Fringepedia

Accepted Ideas

Ideas Under Review

Rejected Ideas

Contents 1 Chat 2 Standardized Quotes 3 "Seen In" 4 Infobox Cast 5 To Do Items 5.1 More Proposals 6 Copyright Tags 7 Page Names 8 New Character Template 9 Episode and Transcript shells 10 Original Pilot Script / Leaked Pilot 11 UAQ Distro 12 Category: ZFT Manifesto Transcriptions 13 Episode Score 14 Shape Changer names 15 Last Seen 16 Cultural References 17 Naming pages for alternate universe characters 18 Timeline 19 Alternate Fringepedia 20 Fringe Science 21 Standardized Character Page? 22 Mysterious Page 23 Episodic Characters 23.1 Delete Episodic Character Pages

Special: Withering

Chat

There are two ways for two people to conduct what I would call a semi-private conversation. (If you want real privacy, use email.)

• The first is for each person to his comments on the other's talk page.
• The second is to conduct the conversation on the page where it started.

Because I think the result is more coherent, I suggest we adopt the second version as an admittedly non-enforceable convention. --Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 15:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree for the most part (2nd version). I've always thought this was best for a medium-size wiki. Some huge wiki like LP, and the conversation could be lost in the white noise... particularly if the respondant is not available for days/weeks. Here, we have a tight turnover and it's easier to rally around one talk page. The only thing - if the conversation appears over, and someone wants to re-ignite, then they should restart the convo on the talk page of the target user... even if that wasn't where the initial rally was. No? –DocH– my edits 19:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Standardized Quotes

Next topic... QUOTES. Seems like they are formatted differently from EP page to EP page... guilty as charged - as I have been trying different formats. Any suggestions (or favorites) for formatting. Personally, I don't think that they should overwhelm their subsection of the article... but - they should be clear and uniquely formatted. There should also be a standard to qualify... be it relevance to key plot points, or even humor. Thoughts? –DocH– my edits 19:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm having trouble getting a handle on this one because I'm not really sure the quotes are all that useful.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Formatting aside, my last sentence above was about the point you make. What qualifies? I think a Quote on an episode page needs to be profound, or telling... speaking to the heart of the episode - whether revealing or foreshadowing. No humor quotes on the episode page (unless they have a dedicated comedy episode like a Halloween special). Save the humor for character pages, or a dedicated "funniest of" page for each season. Humor does have a place in the show - it shows personal limits, boundaries and sensitivities, or lack of. Quotes are the equivalent of This Episode Clues. –DocH– my edits 01:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Seen In"

I recently added Christopher Penrose's only episode to the seen_in prompt for the infobox, even though he first appeared and died in one episode; soon thereafter I noticed that I had removed the same information from Flora Meegar's infobox, explaining that seen_in was unnecessary when first and death were the same. We need a "rule," or maybe just a sanity check.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, I think we adopted too many info management burdens that were established as a standard model somewhere else. For a role that is seen only once - you don't even touch FIRST= or LAST=... you simply use SEEN IN=. If they show-up later, then you go back and start using FIRST= & LAST=. Adding STATUS= can help too. Flora would only get a SEEN_IN={{ep|105}} and a STATUS=Deceased - Heart Failure... no First=, Last= or Death=. ChrisPen would get a SEEN_IN={{ep|102}} and a STATUS=Deceased - Rapid Progeria... nothing else. Dr.Penrose would get SEEN_IN={{ep|102}} and a STATUS=At-Large... D.Esterbrook would get SEEN_IN={{ep|106}} and a STATUS=Incarcerated... –DocH– my edits 01:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Good approach. After all "First seen" and "Last seen" suggest that the person has been seen more than once.--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 02:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • We have, it seems, four categorizes: FIRST, LAST, SEEN_IN and DEATH.
    • FIRST is a restatement of the first item in SEEN_IN, is nearly pointless and we could drop it from the data; this is true even if the episode(s) is/are not displayed in the box, requiring a click to get to the detail.
    • LAST is nearly pointless and we could drop it from the data; after all who knows when last is? Except...
    • SEEN_IN is useful.
    • DEATH is the true "LAST." John Scott is a special case we have to deal with. There are, however, few characters we have to deal with (that we care about?) who can't simply be dealt with by using Category:Deceased Characters. We could drop it from the data.

--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 15:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I like the existing entries but with the following rules: one appearance, just fill SEEN_IN; more than one appearance, just fill FIRST and LAST (and remove SEEN_IN). Then update LAST as character appear in new episodes. DEATH is good as a dead character may still appear after the death episode, in which case LAST is updated (just look at LOST!)--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 16:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Noted! Christian Shepard has been "dead" for a looooong time.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Cast

I have been playing with the Infobox Cast (see User:Labgo/sandbox). I know we have discussed this a few times in relation to multicast pages, but cast pages will likely remain blank in many instances, particularly for one-time appearances, except for the infobox. This is Ok as this is not a wiki about actors and the basic info in the infobox with a link to IMDb is in my opinion sufficient in most instances. So what about a landscape infobox which at least appears to fill the page? I created one with the same info except for one addition, the image of the portrayed character. I find it nice to see on the same page the actor and its character. Would that be too different from the standard? Comments?--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 18:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• That, Sir, is a neatly executed piece of work! What do we call the page? "Episode Name/Guest Cast"?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jim in Georgia (talk • contribs) .
  • I like that as well. My only comment - shrink the "Actor" image to 200px and plump the "Character" image to 200px, or there-abouts, for balance. -- –DocH– my edits 01:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• What I was suggesting is to make a template out of this to replace the actual Template:Infobox Cast so that all actor pages, which are for the most part empty except for the infobox, will show this landscape format. We can still use the same Cast Shell with an added row for the image of the character portrayed. (I know, this is a lot of work...) --Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 01:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Leap of logic on my part. I had emailed Doc that I saw multiple character pages in my future and then... Well, never mind. :) IMO, the guts of the product are the episode pages; second to them are the character pages (character details may not disagree with episode details). After them are the cast pages. This betrays my perspective. The best actors make me think about the character and I am completely uninterested in the actors' love life, marriages and fist fights. However, the template-to-be is about the cast member. I'm satisfied with the current stress of cast photo over char photo. Modifying Cast Shell is less than a minute's work at any time. The current template will ignore the char_image (or whatever) variable. The template can use the Silhuette.jpg as a default in both places.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 02:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • At least the addition made by DocH of stub + headers (About + carreer, etc.) to the pages does make them appear less empty.--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 18:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Peter Outerbridge now comes with the landscape Infobox Cast (It's actually Template:Test). The only thing we have to add to each cast member is the file id of the character's image; the unknown silhouette image will display be default.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 20:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I like it. The page looks good! --Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 20:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Ditto. I agree. –DocH– my edits 06:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Additional Thought: Talk of IMDb as the only source could use some change. Why are we limiting the final data-point to 'IMDb ID'. If this were changed to 'Fansites' that would allow sources other than IMDb, to include, personal/professional links. IMDb = too restrictive on the Cast Infobox. –DocH– my edits 22:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• That's a good idea and an easy fix. When/if it happens, all the links to IMDb probably will blow up because we're storing a portion of the link as hard code in the template. The fix to that is tedious but easy. Linking to the wikipedia entries for the cast, btw, was pretty smart.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 00:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• I would say keep IMDb and add another entry for 'fansites'.--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 00:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• While pondering, I added the new darker color to Infobox Cast and made the display of the Middle Name contingent on there being one. Should I narrow the prompts to match the character box? For the time being, put me as "undecided" about keeping IMDb as a separate entry.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 01:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

To Do Items

I brought this over from the To Do list for comment.

• Create a page titled: Unknown Contact. Unknown contact is the contact The Observer comunicates with on his cellular phone.

- My initial thinking is to not create that page. There are many possible "unknown contacts" (Ghost Network & almost every villain). If we had more content to develop, then maybe yes... like if we had actual comments from the Unknown (think Charlie's Angels). For now, Unknowns are just theory fodder - Observer(The Arrival)/Theory and Ghost/Theory, etc... thoughts? –DocH– my edits 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with creation. The contact could have been the guy manning the desk that day; if we learn more, we can reconsider.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 19:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

More Proposals

• Add information on the appearances of the Fringe Symbols in each episode to the Fringe Symbols page.
  • Up to date.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 20:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Add information on Editing Help to the Editing Help Page
• Adjust the link on the template:Mainwelcome|Main Welcome on the Main page. Link should be changed from [[Fringepedia:To Do List]] to [[Fringepedia:To Do List|To Do List]]
  • Done.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 20:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Include information on the name of the Bank in Providence which is robbed in Safe.
  • Done.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 20:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Link Dark Matter from the Fringe Science/Theories-Facts-Myths portal to Fringe Science portal. –DocH– my edits Moved from To Do to Ideas (for consensus)
  • Comment. Not yet canon?--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 20:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Add Fringe Codes category of pages. Codes are everywhere in the show. One I just noticed is a number code in the nav bar on the FOX Fringe home page: AJ COCC E is the letter equivalent of the 1 10 .. 3 15 3 3 .. 5 in the navbar words. Intlib 06:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I thought it was just 1, 3 and 5 being used in lieu of I, E and S, but you may be right; the Os looked alphabetic rather than nummeric. Are there others?--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 20:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll be looking for more. 1, 3 and 5 are typically used in 1337 speak, but there are no 7's for T's, 4's for A's in the navbar links, so that is inconsistent with them being fontographical. If a ceasar cypher is working for the glyph codes it may be useful to try it on this cyphertext as well.--Intlib 04:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Tags

I suggest we extend the number of copyright tags in use in the Image Tags Section. Fringe includes locations in Europe where photos are under European Copyright systems. I suggest we include copyright tags relevant to the locations inside Fringe. One example is the Hamburg Photo found in Hamburg which is under German copyright free distribution license. Robinabo Talk Contribs 02:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

- Another option is to NOT use images NOT associated with the US television show that is using US copyright laws and US public domain guidelines for images and other media. In this example, using a wiki-link to the en.wikipedia page/image leaves the copyright/PD burden with that wiki and keeps Non-canon images off this wiki/server. –DocH– my edits 05:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

- Agree with DocH. If we try to put up every possible template for every possible country where fringe events occur, we could be very busy people.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 00:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Page Names

We have five pages, not counting episode pages, that begin with the word "The." I'm responsible for at least three of them. They have become a pain because using them in text in the middle of a sentence requires an alias, e.g.: ...members of the [[The Team|Team]] were called to....

• The Committee - Done
• The Observer - Retained
• The Pattern - Retained
• Steig Brothers - Done
• The Team - Done

I propose dropping the article from the name of these pages. Wiki will create a REDIRECTs for us and we can do clean-ups at our convinience. While doing this, we should change the name of The Team to Science Team per Doc's recommendation. --Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 19:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good - I've been using "Oversight Committee" (reviewing files - commenting on new hires = oversight?) and "Science Team" (specifically in their PD?). I'll need to go back and 'clean-up' along those lines too. –DocH– my edits

I'd forgotten your comments on "Oversight Committee;" that one is not a problem with me.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 21:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

OK with me. Some comments. Other possible name for Science Team: Fringe Science Team. Oversight Committee is certainly better then a general name like Committee. I hesitate a bit on dropping the article in The Pattern as the 'The' is clearly part of the name in the show, more than just an article. --Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 01:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point on "The Pattern." When characters speak, you can almost here the capital letters. it's a title; we should probably keep it.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 01:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree on The Pattern. The Observer should be retained too. Broyles said that is what they had been calling him - see 1.04/trans = "The Observer". As for the science team, 95% of what they do is conventional science. The Fringe part of it is to go after the Fringe science cells associated with the Pattern. In context, the Science Team is, by default, the Fringe Science Team... until we get another team to diferrentiate them against. –DocH– my edits

Moves complete. As we discussed, I kept "The Pattern" and "The Observer." I went with "Science Team" as the new name for The Team, but I created a redirect of "Fringe Science Team" to point to the new page. "The Team" is also still out the as a redirect; it'll work at the beginning of a sentence.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 00:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

New Character Template

Inspired by Labgo (really), I've prototyped a landscape-oriented Infobox Character. The existing template is still in place; the proposed item may be found at Template:Test. There's an implementation at User:Jim in Georgia/sandbox#Projects. The dashes are there to force the discretionary items to show up. Please modify the entries at the implementation to see how it works (it's a SANDBOX, folks!) and comment on the template (it has a sysop lock on it). This thing also refers to "Seen in", above. I have removed date of birth and place of birth from the table; to my knowledge, we do not have that information from any canonical source. I've added status and remarks. "Status" has a lot of possible meanings and I think we'll settle in once we start using it. For example, I entered "Living" for Olivia, but maybe it should be abducted/missing. "Remarks is a potential minefield. I added it to allow us explain things like John Scott is dead -- kinda. Our original infoboxes were portrait oriented because the place we got them had portrait oriented boxes. I thing we need our own look.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 22:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

- Nice. Two things. One - the Pinker comment (see also) - I would drop that to the bottom of the 'Background' section... away from the 'About" header. Two, the first data column (profess, age, aka) is too wide and gobbles real estate - reduce by 30% and allow the center column to flourish without wrapping or < breaks >. –DocH– my edits 22:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

- Thanks. The Pinker comment is there (referenced) 'cause it's always been somewhere on the page. I'll hold the mod on the column width for a while; it's partly controlled by the Infobox row template that still supports the old format.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 01:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

- Sunday afternoons are potentially dangerous. I've added a new color to the background. Comments welcome. Technically, btw, the hex value for the new color was obtained by adding the difference between {{FringeMediumGreen}} and {{FringePaleGreen}} to {{FringeMediumGreen}} (yielding {{FringeDarkGreen}}?).--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 20:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

- Nice. By the way the images of main characters are not very realistic. They don't appear very natural, more like actor's promotional pictures in their specific role.--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 22:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

-Good point on the images. I always though of them as a good starting point. We had earlier decided that Main images for all should be square, but that was all. If good high quality pictures are available use them. I'll formalize the new, darker green so it's available for various applications, and start moving the format into "production." There're a couple little nits to pick.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 22:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

- The testplate pushes category Character (vice CharacterS). Does the infobox have to publish unused data points. Visually, showing only used data points is much more appealing. I hate seeing "death episode" below the lovely Olivia. [;^( - - –DocH– my edits 22:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

- Thinking about the small screen user (800x600) the template runs way right. It doesn't fit until you get to 1068px width. The 140px left navbar, the 300px char-image with 25% of the table and then the data/160px actor-image with a guaranteed 75% of the table... makes for a BIG template on the small screen. –DocH– my edits

Episode and Transcript shells

I modified the episode and transcript shells to match the latest version that we have been using. I made it so that it can be dropped on a page and the ACT links will work without modification. It seems to work. I tried it with "Ability". Let me know if I missed something or if you think it does not correspond to what we have been using.--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 16:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

- Help Shells look about right to me. I know the glyphs are your pet project, but I still don't see any merit in listing "Opening Sequence - same as Pilot". If they changed (even once) then oui. As it is now - no merit. –DocH– my edits 18:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

- I don't mind striking the intro sequence glyph reference from the episode pages. Keeping the actual list in one place only (Pilot?) is likely enough. The only reason I had it there was not for its intrinsic value but for making it clear to people that the possibly interesting glyphs are NOT taken from the intro sequence. I still hope that cracking the variable sequence gets you a prize or something, perhaps a night out with Anna Torv or Mira Tzur... --Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 23:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

- Would an "Episode Glyphs" page make sense? I don't know if the sequence of the Glyphs means anything, but it would be neat if one user came up with a theory before they explain it on the shell.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 01:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

- The advantage of the page approach is that you see all the glyphs at the same time. Perhaps easier to see a pattern.--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 02:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

- A night out with Torv OR Tzur? You sure know how to push my buttons. Make it a night out with Torv AND Tzur and I will personally drive to the Bad Robot offices in Burbank, California, and force a full "glyphs" confession from the creative staff. [8^) –DocH– my edits

DISAGREE: I retract my vote for Episode Shell. I just noticed that somewhere along the way == Synopsis == has managed to stay in the shell from Day One. When we were fixing the TOC problem, we had it so the TOC plunged as far down the left side as need be. Prologue, Act I, II, etc... could be penetrated to prevent any WhiteSpace across the top at all - the two level Synopsis prohibits it. We manually omitted it on a few pages, but they have since been restored (due diligence). If we want to keep the word Synopsis then we need to demote it to a three-level header. We can underline it for visual, or just delete it, but I'd like to kill the WhiteSpace in either case and satisfy the goal of the tailored TOC. –DocH– my edits 01:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

- Yes demoting to level 3 would do it. Although at this point I don't see when this problem was reintroduced after we solved it (we did solve this earlier, right?). I recently changed the episode shell to reflect the last episodes adopted format but since the shell is copied and pasted to pages this should not have introduced a problem in existing episode pages. Yet, early episodes show the big white gap.--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 04:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, you re-installed a few == Synopsis == right around 24 Dec 08, on the pages where they were trimmed. Not all Ep pages were trimmed though. Due diligence is a good thing. I thought we did solve this earlier - that's why I mentioned it. I am not sure if we will see SysopJim for a few days on this - tonight was LOST night and he may need a few days to recover. –DocH– my edits

- Whatever happened I agree we should get it back the way we had it, with no blanks.--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 11:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm here! I concur on the no blanks. I specifically like the way The Transformation looks, so I pulled the Synopsis line out of The No-Brainer. Chapter I of 112 is interesting as a result. We would be constrained from using a Landscape image; that's okay.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I may have caused this recent problem... I was playing around with the Comic #2 page, and I changed the <H2> CSS to see if that would fix the layout. I just changed it back... see if that fixes the problem you are seeing... -- Dennis  Talk  Contribs  22:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

-It is back to normal now, even with the Synopsis in place.--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 23:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Original Pilot Script / Leaked Pilot

Where do we want to put information about these? I have the text of the original script (the one with all the swearing). There are substantial differences to it and the final pilot that could be discussed in a Pilot Script article. I think we should also have an article about the leaked pilot, maybe with the differences listed and the history of the leak. I don't think the leaked pilot is different enough from the final to warrant a separate transcript... what do you think? -- Dennis  Talk  Contribs  15:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't want to put them anywhere on the site. If we're doing canon, then the stuff that never got broadcast becomes a curiousity unrelated to the FRINGE project.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 15:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should discourage non-canon information, in the same way we discourage spoilers. What about Deleted scenes for the DVD? That wouldn't be considered canon either... also the ARG stuff and the comics aren't canon ... that's a lot of stuff to ignore -- Dennis  Talk  Contribs  15:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• The first section on this page (Canon) addresses some of these issues. For deleted scenes a suggestion is to use the trivia section to report it. In my opinion we can talk about anything related to Fringe (except spoilers). The original Pilot script is an interesting piece of information, perhaps to be discussed in a "Pilot/Original Script" page. The important thing is that the Fringe fictional universe is from canon source. So articles referring to theories, character actions and motivations, plot, etc. must all be based on canon information and not contain info/arguments based on deleted scenes or unused script.--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 16:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• I've had the original script for over 3 months, if you're talking about the 114 page .pdf with all of the vulgarities. I've been using it to get original naming correct like - "SITUATION ROOM", etc... The content suggests that we have only seen half of the pilot ep. There was so much torn out of it that has yet to be revealed. My guess is that those elements will be re-introduced as the season finale/cliff-hanger. My proposed solution is to not post the OrigScript until the first season is complete - or most of the plot points in it have been exposed. It will never be canon... but it is an interesting complement to canon, once we know what that is. This is a family-friendly site also... the profanity needs to be redacted out of the .pdf. I dislike perpetuating it. –DocH– my edits 20:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree, it's not canon, and I'm not suggesting that we post the PDF, but just the text, like with the other transcripts. I agree about the profanity, It would need to be censored before posting, so there's no history to worry about. I haven't read the whole thing yet, so I can't comment on the potential spoilers yet, but just because something was in the original script, doesn't necessarily mean it will come to pass. -- Dennis  Talk  Contribs  22:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

- I've read it a couple of times. There is a whole other 90 minute movie in there, that was cut-out. I won't list which characters, but it will become obvious, who is due for a powerful reappearance, and the agenda they have. I like the idea of dropping the "script" into our "transcript" format (profanity goes away), and it'll make good reading - 5 months from now when it won't spoil much of anything. –DocH– my edits

• Is censorship some kind of policy here? I'm against censorship, and, aside from that, I don't think it's anyone's place to rewrite the script to any extent. If it's original Fringe writing, canon or not, it should be available in it's original form -- unaltered, objective. If I want someone's opinion on what the writing should be like, I won't look to Fringepedia. If there is a concern about adult content, there should be a warning at the top of the page. -- Plasticity
• It's not a question of censorship; it's a question of good taste. I don't think anyone would really want to live in an uncensored world, although the idea may seem attractive prior to arrival. If, at some point, we choose to post it here, we could put "*BEEP*" or some other indicator of having removed vulgarity from the text. I have not read the script, but, for the time being, it is a spoiler because it contains information not yet broadcast which may be incorporated into future releases.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 15:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Censoring/altering original work is not something I tend to favour. However, what is appropriate to broadcast or put on a particular internet site is up to the broadcaster or owner of the site to decide. But personally I would prefer to simply eliminate materials deemed unacceptable rather than publish an altered or incomplete version.--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 19:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

- Backburner. Turned up. No censorship involved with any of this effort. What was written for characters is all PG-7. The descriptives are all 'walked here, picked-up that, stared/frowned', etc... the expletives are all Abrams comments - eF this, eS that, comments about desired impact. None of which fits into FP transcript format. aka self-eliminating comment, foul mouth banter. Anyone that wants to see the raw PDF can google it in about 0.38 seconds. –DocH– my edits 05:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

UAQ Distro

Pet Project #2 for the hiatus. Once all of the dust settles on the finale and all of the UAQ's, we need to start wrangling them into the proper corrals. It is easy to sit on one page and extrapolate ad nauseum - but the UAQ for an ep should be about that ep. Grander UAQs should start to gravitate toward the larger mysteries portal. Which reminds me... we need to get a page up and going under that portal for parallel universe or something like that. We also need to comb previous ep and character pages for UAQ's that can be reasonably answered. We should avoid discarding solved UAQs though. Preferably, move it to the 'fact' part of the page... second choice is move it back to the talk page - for continuity. Thoughts anyone??? –DocH– my edits 19:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

- Just curious how we would handle UAQs that appear on an episode page but are specific to a character. Perhaps putting the UAQ on both the episode and the character page and linking back to the episode page? Or would that then take up too much space on the character page? --Evil Joe 21:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

- I personally think that any reasonable UAQ deserves to be nearest to the Wiki-content it is most closely associated with. I think the problem is when a UAtopic is so broad, and covers so many data points, that it needs to have a rally point. Maybe we need to build a "UAQ Central" for the broadly-based concerns like alter world –DocH– my edits 21:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

- I was also thinking of the parrallel universe or world page, in which we would list things that are different from the universe we know. I suspect that we will also need a way to rapidly identify characters originating (born?) in that parrallel universe. Perhaps a different color for the infobox or the top bar or simply a different section on the same page. Things are relatively simple now, but if we end up with many instances where two versions of the same characters are being encountered it may get complicated. We probably already have facts related to two different Peter. Do we know for sure from which universe the William Bell we saw is coming from? Will we be limited to only one parrallel universe? David Deutsch's theory of the multiverse (highly recommended reading to understand multiverse) seems to say that only universes that are nearly identical can interract.--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 23:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• A couple of thoughts:

UAQs start at the episode and sit there until something else impacts.

• If the same character causes more interest, it moves to the character page. Same with organizations and locations.
• Major UAQs become mysteries. Please look at the Lostpedia UAQ page; it's nothing but a poorly maintained echo of the individual episode questions. I think it's a pet project.
• Any UAQ that is moved or removed may only be so treated with an explanation. No explanation, the item gets restored.

• UAQs thought to be unanswerable/trivial get <s>strikeouts</s> to allow for comment. They get deleted after a "decent interval;" we'll figure that one out on the fly. No one gets blindsided.

BTW, I've started on implementing "Season 2 compatibility." The episode nav now points to season 2, where TBA is masquerading as an "episode page." I'm letting the transcript nav cook at least overnight. I'll try to get to the new character portals this weekend.

--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 01:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• One thing about UAQ's, as they start to get answered in swarms, that is where "storyline analysis" comes in handy - to condense a focal response. We can also drop links in the UAQ - to relocated topical Qs like alternate world. –DocH– my edits 01:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Right--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 12:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Category: ZFT Manifesto Transcriptions

We should seek to collect transcriptions of whatever parts of the manifesto that we can see in the video or the characters read from the manifesto, piece the document together like the dead sea scrolls here. This would likely give us a better understanding of things.Intlib 04:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

- Good idea.--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 11:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

- Concur. --But we need a few more data points. If we get another three or four excerpts in the first half of Season 2 - then we should build a dedicated page. –DocH– my edits 04:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Accepted Ideas

Ideas Under Review

Rejected Ideas

Episode Score

What does everyone think about adding a page for all of the in-episode music of Fringe? For example, the show's theme song, the ending credits song, and the song heard at the end of There's More Than One of Everything, also heard at the end of Fracture, inferring a recurring theme?--UrPQ31 02:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

- I have not followed music very much but is this not the purpose of Portal:Music? --Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 03:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

- I figured that page was for music not created for the show but was featured in the show. Unless it can be expanded to include both? --UrPQ31 03:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

- A portal is supposed to be 'one-stop-shopping' for the topic. If there is a viable method to incorporate the 'composed' score with the 'commercial' music at the portal point, that would be desired. If that leads to a separate content page for original/composed FRINGE music, then okay. I am not sure there is enough content (yet) for that page, or what it would look like. Any sample out there? LOST? BSG? SG1? –DocH– my edits 23:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Shape Changer names

I am moving the discussion about tracking and naming the Shape Changers. Here are a few proposals:

• Create a Shape Changing Soldiers page describing what we have learned about Shape Changers and list on this page the prominent Shape Changers with link to their page.
• Name all Shape Changing Soldiers with the prefix SCS followed by a number in order of appearance, a dash and the name of the character being impersonated (or Unknown# or other descriptive). For example, our Shape Changer should be first called SCS1-George Reed, and then SCS1-Lloyd Parr, SCS1-Olivia's nurse, SCS1-Charlie Francis. Each of these would be on the same page called Shape Changing Soldier 1 (SCS1) in a different section (to allow other pages to link to it). Each section could have an infobox or simply a picture of the character in his/her new role. This will facilitate cretion of pages when we don't have a name since names will appear in the sections only. Other pages would be created for other Shape Changing Soldiers appearing. These would be named SCS2, SCS3, etc.
• So rename Shape Changer to Shape Changing Soldier 1 (SCS1).
• Move info entered on page Charlie Francis after his death to page Shape Changing Soldier 1 (SCS1) under section SCS1-Charlie Francis.
• Change Transcripts to reflect naming of Shape Changers (i.e. SCS1-CHARLIE instead of CHARLIE).

--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 16:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

relocated from Talk:Momentum_Deferred#Shape Changer & Skull Guy Names

- IMDb doesn't have names for them yet. TV.Com is calling them "Hybrid" (Cross) and "Leader" (Roche). What if we call them Hybrid Soldier and Hybrid Leader. None have demonstrated shange-changing abilities yet, though we assume Hybrid Soldier can, as he has a conversion device. –DocH– my edits 01:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Last Seen

Looking through other wikis, I've noticed that last seen is not a data element used much. The LP, for example, does not use it. There is as a good a chance as any that I was the guy who added it way back when. In retrospect, it seems that the element mostly gives us something to update. Is it really useful? I think not. This is not a question about death episode, btw. That one, I think, is useful. Doing away with the data element will not require edits to the character pages. If we take the line out of the template, the data will stop showing up. We can later delete the "data call" from the character pages at our convinience. Recommend we modify Infobox Character to delete the last seen line.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 01:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

- I agree. In fact your comments made last January in the Seen-in section above are quite true. As you pointed out, First-seen is just the first entry of Seen-in. So only seen-in is really necessary but it would require us to enter all the episodes in seen-in.--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 03:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

- I say pull "seen-in". It is covered pretty well lower on the page. "First Seen", "Last Seen" and "Death Ep" are all the infobox needs... –DocH– my edits 04:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

- The recommendation was to do away with "Last seen" based on its being high maintenance and low return of value.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 16:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

- Where is everybody? Any opinions on this? This is the second time on the same page that the topic (or at least a closely related topic) is discussed. DocH is right that seen-in is covered elsewhere in the page. But then one could also argue that air date, season and episode numbers all appear in the episode infobox and the first paragraph of the episode page. So I guess the infobox is a point form summary of key information. If we accept that seen-in is not required because it is already listed on the page then we should also conclude that First-seen and Last-seen are listed on the page since the seen-in list is ordered. Sorry Jim, I find it difficult to address Last seen in isolation from the other two entries, even if I agree with you that Last seen has a low return value. It is also the only one of the three that actually gives wrong information if not updated on time (seen-in keeps being true even if incomplete) --Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

- Okay, point well taken.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 00:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

- Where is everbody? 4 replies in less that 47 hours hardly quals as an abandoned issue. –DocH– my edits

- True, but comments from users other than the three of us would perhaps provide a different view on things.--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 23:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

- I concur with everything Labgo said. I personally would like to see all the episodes listed in the "Seen in" summary. The listing of where seen information within the page includes extra detail, which is nice but harder to scan. Having the full list in the "Seen in" entry would make the "First seen" and "Last seen" entries completely unneeded. Eliminating them would make the infobox more concise without throwing away any of the original intent. Just having a "Seen in" list instead of the other two would essentially be an even swap maintenance-wise (of course there is that initial work of updating existing pages). --HazyMyst 17:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

- I tried using the character episodes cat to update the seen-in section of the infobox for Nina Sharp. What do you think? Could we use this for seen-in in recurring characters and just enter one episode title if the character is not recurring? If we do that do we need to maintain also in the Trivia section (given that this is an expensive function)? --Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 10:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

- One place on the page is enough.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 14:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

- My last may not have been clear. Working within the template is good; the entry in Trivia is not required.--Jim in Georgia Talk Contribs 03:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Cultural References

This week's new episode Johari Window made a couple of Wizard of Oz references which started me thinking, It's starting to look like Fringe is taking a leaf out of Lost's playbook and starting to make some cultural & literary references (it's a JJ Abrams show, it's to be expected)

• For instance the season 2 poster was full of Alice in Wonderland references, IO9 collated them well
  • Olivia as Alice, standing in front of the hole to the other world
  • Walter as the Mad Hatter
  • Peter as the Cheshire Cat, jumping between realities
  • A letter from the Red Queen
  • A white rabbit
• Johari Window's Wizard of Oz references could mean something like
  • Olivia as Dorothy - sucked into another world
  • Walter as the Cowardly Lion - smart, strong but paralysed by fear
  • Peter as the Tin Man
  • Nina as Glinda the good witch (maybe, maybe the Wicked Witch)
  • William Bell as the Wizard, the man behind the curtain

I propose a new portal, just like Lost's for these references. Oliyoung 01:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Naming pages for alternate universe characters

Not sure if it is a good idea to have a page named by the nickname of a character (i.e. Walternate). This character's name is Walter Bishop. This brings us back to the discussion about naming alternate characters. Some possibilities:

1. Create an "Alternate" name space so the page name remains the full character name but in the different name space (i.e. we would have Main:Walter Bishop and Alternate:Walter Bishop)
2. Use a sub-page of the main character page (i.e. Walter Bishop and Walter Bishop/Alternate)
3. Use a different page but add something standard to make a difference (i.e. Walter Bishop and Walter Bishop (alternate))
4. Treat both characters on the same page, but in different section (i.e. One Walter Bishop page with a section for the alternate)

My preference would be number 2. "Alternate" in this case would mean from a different universe compared to the main entry. It would not point to one of the two universes in particular so we would not have to know the origin before entering a character the first time. For many characters, only the main entry would exists and could represent someone from either universes. So the Peter we know, for example, would still be the main Peter page even if he is from the alternate universe. It is the young Peter who died that would be on the Peter/Alternate page. --Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 23:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

- Agree on avoiding the nickname as primary. Have the nickname REDIR to the approp. naming.
We haven't really heard Walter Bishop (alt) speak, have we? Just his image in his lab.
All of the data on our grown/regular Peter Bishop page has to be transfered to Peter Bishop (alt) because that is who he is.
The regular Peter Bishop now becomes just a sick in bed that die is 7 minutes into one episode.
We have two Elizabeths (here/there), one Carla (here) and I think one Observer - he interfered there, but acted here - UNLESS there are two - but they share thinking telepathically. -- –DocH– my edits 01:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

- My point above is that we should not move what is now under Peter Bishop to an alternate subpage, the deceased Peter should be on the alternate subpage. For me the tag /Alternate in a subpage would simply mean a character originating in a different universe from the one identified on the main character page. So the first version of a character that is encountered is always entered on the main page, irrespective of its originating universe (we may in fact not know where the character comes from). If no other versions of this character are seen, then everything is status quo. If a second version of a character from another universe appears then a subpage is created for that character (such as Peter Bishop/Alternate). --Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 02:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

- Gotcha. Go for it. I was associating alt with universe, not with "not the primary we know". How would that work for Elizabeth? We had moderate doses of her in both universes in her only episode. –DocH– my edits 02:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

- Your point above about The Observer (he interfered there but acted here) seems to indicate that Observers are possibly not from either universes but can appear in any of them (the same Observer in two universes rather than a different version of an Observer in each). For Elizabeth, I guess the only important thing is that both are described, the order is not really important as long as we note in the text of the pages where the action is taking place (i.e. which universe). I think the subpages should be named "/Duplicate" instead of "/Alternate" so the word Alternate is reserved for when we are talking about the Alternate Universe (versus Our Universe). --Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 03:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

- If you want to develop your favorite Option (#2 above) with /Duplicate instead of /Alternate - do so. I support it. sidebar: Two Observers with one mind that don't crossover... or One Observer that acts in both universes? I don't know. -- –DocH– my edits 05:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

- At he last minute I opted for Instance instead of Duplicate. I think it is more accurate. I did three characters for now, I hope there are not too many inconsistencies. As an aside I replaced alternate universe by Parallel Universe in a few places to match our page by that name. --Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 00:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

I'd like to propose a Timeline, that lists events in in-universe chronology. The episode guides are good for understanding what happened in episode X, but trying to piece together the whole story from multiple episodes is hard. I'm willing to get this started, and it would be great if folks want to adopt particular episodes to try to add their historical references to the timeline. I'm new here, so thought I would throw this out and see what people think. Jonathanweber

- Can't be in-universe because that is not canon (comics, etc...). It has to be seen/spoken on the aired episodes (canon). A 1991 committing to St. Claire's has never really been stated explicitly on the show. Broyles says "in 1991, the glorious State of Massachusetts forbade Dr. Bishop from having any visitors, with the exception of immediate family." The Carla Warren death could have been in late 1990, with Walter being committed in '90. The restriction to "family-only visits" could have come later in 1991, after an initial evaluation period at the hospital. One thing about starting a new 'specialty' page... you might wind-up being the only one maitaining and adding to it. -- –DocH– my edits 05:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternate Fringepedia

I think we should include articles that are "Other Side" related only, like Water (Other Side), Peter (Other Side), etc. because we are starting to see more and more of the Other Side. It could be like two Fringepedias that sort of link to one another. We could invert the color scheme or whatnot. It could be pretty cool/fun and easier to sort out the differences between universes. Check out what Lostpedia does with their flash-sideways characters and it could sort of be like that. Games987 20:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

- Great Idea. We solved that three weeks ago. Read two ideas higher up this page. OR enter the word "Instance" in the search box on the left side of the page and hit SEARCH. Right now there are other side (Instance) pages for Walt, Pete and Mrs. Walt. -- –DocH– my edits 21:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed this, but I'm thinking more along the lines of a more widespread "Alter-Fringepedia." Perhaps we could even incorporate the color scheme. Games987 21:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Fringe Science

--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 00:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Placing the "fringe science" of the episode in the infobox and create a page where each episode is linked with fringe science investigated. -- Xerophytes _{Talk | Contribs} 06:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

- This is probably possible. Some links to episodes occur on the Portal:Fringe Science page but not as organised as you are suggesting. Is it always clear from the episode which Fringe Science is at play? --Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 18:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

- Hmm... I think the fringe science in each episode is clear enough, I mean some episodes could have multiple fringe sciences in there, but then in case the episode don't have a fringe science, we can "hide" it in the infobox or not put the episode in the page of "fringe sciences". I'm a bit at lost with the portal, I think it is better if each fringe sciences can be linked to particular episode for easier navigation, because people know about the the episode, and not so much about the technical term for the fringe science.-- Xerophytes _{Talk | Contribs} 05:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

- The portal (second column) links instances of fringe sciences to transcripts where it is discussed (usually an explaination by Walter). I guess this information could be presented in a sortable table with the episode as one of the column. Here is a sample with a couple of entries (note that Organo-Metallics is not a Fringe Science, but its use in Fringe is unique - injected into the brain to boost communication):

Fringe Sciences in FRINGE

Episode	Fringe Science	Short Definition	Transcript Reference
The Same Old Story	Organo-Metallics	Organic chemical compounds containing a metallic element	↝
In Which We Meet Mr. Jones	Post-Mortem Synaptic Transfer	Transfer of toughts from a deceased person through brain stimulation	↝

--Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 11:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

- That table make sense more. My concern with that though that each fringe science should be explained through transcript. In some cases, the Fringe science is not really explained; ie the Alternate Universe is a fringe science, yet an episode like Peter doesn't have particularly explanation on that (or was it?). Also, alternate universe theme could have different "fringe" on it, ie communication, travelling, peeking, etc. So how specific do we go into that? For me, Alternate Universe is a sufficient fringe science. I think it is very useful if there's an information on each episode page what is the fringe science of the week. -- Xerophytes _{Talk | Contribs} 12:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Except we already have most of that at Portal:Fringe_Science So - not a new idea AND it is under supported already. -- –DocH– my edits 23:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

- Absolutely, this is a proposal to improve the arrangement of the Portal to show the list of fringe sciences per episode, nothing new (except the Infobox bit as proposed by Xerophytes) . This portal is a bit confusing as it is now. --Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 00:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

- I think the "under-supported" part is my main concern. Make it as pretty and functional as you like, but when I am the main contributor on just a 'summer project', it will definitely suffer. The infobox should not lead to poorly supported pages. –DocH– my edits

- Good point. Perhaps rearranging the Portal would help but I would not support implementing the infobox change now. --Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 01:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Standardized Character Page?

I'm a bit confused about this. I may be at lost with where to go and how to find the information or I was just lazy to look for it, but is there a "standardized character page layout" out there, where everyone can just copy and paste so they can start up if there's a new character? Also, I don't get the stubs. Some page got only this stub - example: Agent Cashner, while others got a "stub" with some information on them - example: Teresa Rusk. Whereas, some page got a table of contents - example: Sam Martin, while some doesn't have, example: Flora Meegar.
I'm proposing to get rid of the table of contents for characters which are not either main characters or doesn't have much information (this goes for deceased and who haven't appeared much). On the stub, do we just remove it if there's enough information in it? -- Xerophytes _{Talk | Contribs} 11:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

- If you click Help on the sidebar you will get to a page which has these templates under the heading "Useful Templates and Formats - New Pages". You will find a number of shells for different types of new pages.If you wish, you can copy my script User:Labgo/Scripts/ShellHelper.js to your User:username/monobook.js page. This will add two buttons above your edit window: the first button adds a character shell to the edit box, the second button adds an actor shell. About the stubs, you can remove them when enough information is entered (this could be very little info for some characters). --Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 02:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

- Labgo is correct on all accts. You have the option on your PREFERENCES page - MISC tab - to select/deselect "Show table of contents (for pages with more than 3 headings)". Mine is selected, as an Admin, to ensure I see all aspects of the site. Stubs tags help us focus our spare time toward pages that need content. I prefer to force my TOC to the right, because that is where the scroll bar is (normally). The basic SHELL has more than three headers... so you get a TOC. Adjust your PREF page to your preferences. I pull unused headers when one-time characters obvious;y have no trivia, UAQs, background, etc... –DocH– my edits 05:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

- Thanks for the tip. I'm thinking of standardizing all the pages of characters this summer. Also, I was wondering if it is preferred to have a paragraph form for the "about" or bulleted form? -- Xerophytes _{Talk | Contribs} 05:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

- Any combo is okay, as appropriate. A paragraph is conversational and descriptive... better for summarily addressing a topic, or only a few items. The bullet is a "LIST"... better for many items, and succinct narrative (less conversational). A combination works well on high content pages. Para 1 = Olivia Topic 1. Then Bullet A, B, C. Para. 2 = Olivia Topic 2. Then Bullet D, E, F. - –DocH– my edits 20:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mysterious Page

I know DocH doesn't approve of the idea of a Portal:Mysterious like at Lostpedia (http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Portal:Mysterious), but I think it could be a really good idea. The Category:Mysterious isn't very appealing and hard to understand. If we could add clickable pictures, like in that portal, I think it would be a good idea. If everyone here is so against a Portal, we can just have an article that looks the same, it doesn't need to be a portal. Thoughts? Games987 22:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

- We already have a well-maintained Mysteries portal. No need to "imitate" Lost AND duplicate our efforts. Maybe in a few seasons when we have massive content. –DocH– my edits 05:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

- I just find that page a bit clunky and hard to use. It could use a makeover in the STYLE of Lostpedia, we don't need to imitate them. Also a note, Lostpedia recently changed their layout for the mysterious portal, so it would no longer imitate them anyways.Games987 18:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

- As it is now, it is a Category page that is self-maintaining (little work) and not clunky. The portal page you suggest is high maintenance and subject to opinion. You can't just arbitrarily "declare" something as: Solved, Partially Solved & Unsolved - on this show. Mysteries reappear. Any mystery that still has a UAQ anywhere in FringePedia is not solved. This wiki is for all of our readers around the world. We don't want folks that are just starting to see Season 2 in South Kreflafvia (sic) to open a portal that declares a mystery as 'solved' by the folks (us) that have seen the rest of Season 2. We want them to see a list of "mysteries" that they can follow to the specific topic they are interested in, IF they chose too. Then, on that topic page, they can get a decent summary of what is known, & a bullet list, in chronological order, about the mystery. The chrono list allows them to stop reading when they get to the episode they are on... to prevent spoiling their upcoming episodes. UAQ's, Theory Page and Talk Page are also available to further understand and explore the mystery. That's the marketing plan here at FP. YOU may be satisfied, between your ears, that a mystery has been sufficiently solved - but we don't need a color-coded portal to reflect that opinion AND serve as a counter-productive reading experience for tens-of-thousands of our readers. - –DocH– my edits 20:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

- I understand this. Once a mystery reappears, you edit the page. It's quite simple. And Fringepedia is supposed to have a wide variety on information. This Category does nothing to help answer the mysteries, while a page like I'm suggesting will help tell people the status of each mystery. During Lost, I always wondered if I had missed the explanation of a mystery and I'd go to the page and see it was still unsolved. The category is very unappealing and difficult to navigate. There are spoilers all over this website. If people are a season behind, they can choose not to visit a particular website. There are portals like this on every wiki, including Lost, FlashForward, V...any show with a large mythology like Fringe. Games987 21:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

- You just named three shows that are not on the air anymore. When Fringe goes off the air we can summarize the mysteries. The whole point is that you don't declare a mystery solved when it has the potential to resurface. Your talk page shows that the "William Bell" mystery is solved (BS). First of all, what is the mystery. What mystery did you solve? I still have a dozen questions about him and don't even think that we are close to learning everything that I consider a mystery about Bell. Same for the Observer. What is partially solved? All we have is a few more details about him - absolutely NO answers on what I consider the mystery of the Observer. You say "Fringepedia is supposed to have a WIDE VARIETY" of information... Answer = No. The information that FP is 'supposed' to have is ACCURATE information. Fringepedia is an indepedent encyclopedia of facts, not a blogsite or a chat forum for speculation. FP would rather have NO information posted, than to have WRONG information posted. -- –DocH– my edits 23:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

- V is still on the air, I'm talking about the remake. And all Lost and FF used this while they were still on the air. Lost used it for YEARS and it was immensely successful. Games987 23:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

- Sorry to say, but I agree with DocH.

• Cause of the Pattern - solved? I am not so convinced with that! The show haven't even define the pattern properly.
• It is the effect of the other universe bleeding into our own because the barrier is breaking down. These strange occurances are simply technological advancements of the other side, while our side has not yet reached that point, so it seems "paranormal" here, but it really isn't.
• Nina's arm - solved? How sure are you that Walter is not lying to Olivia when he tells his backstory? How did you manage to reconcile Nina's alleged lie to Walter's story?
• Little Hill - solved? Can you please explain to me who is the Gentleman?
• Good point. A separate mystery should be made for "The Gentleman" because Little Hill, we know, is the meeting place to transport Jones. They should be 2 separate mysteries.
• The equation - solved? What about the GGGR?
• You're right, should be partially solved.
• Cortexiphan - solved? If this is solved, then there's no point of telling the story of the cortexiphan next season.
• You're right, should be partially solved.
• William's visit - solved? Visit to where? To the parallel universe? To Walter in St Clare's? Both are even partially solved.
• Olivia's visit with William in the WTC. We ended up seeing it in season 2 after Olivia had her breakthrough in her memory.
• Thomas Newton - solved? I don't even know how did his head get to the cryonics lab. How did he found out the whereabouts of the brain tissues?
• Should be partially solved.

The point here is, the show is still running and the answers that the writers gave us leads to more questions. And I don't want to say that a mystery is solved until the show ended. We even found out MANY times that the answer they gave us could even be misleading (ie Peter's car crash? Nina's arm?). I think it is best to quantify the mysteries under the category it is now and perhaps expand them in there. Although, I really like the idea of using picture instead of just boring text. -- Xerophytes _{Talk | Contribs} 07:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

- Sorry, I jumped the gun on "V". It is not officially cancelled -BUT- it is not officially renewed either. The Vancouver studio it is shot in does not have it scheduled to film on any of their stages. The other studios do not have it scheduled to film. ABC did not announce it as a Fall 2010 show. Speculation has it that IF "V" does return it will be during the Winter (midseason gap plug) programming. –DocH– my edits

- As for the Mystery solving on LOST - those are different types of Mysteries and don't equate to those on FRINGE. LOST is fantasy mystery. FRINGE is science/procedural mystery. You solve mystery on FRINGE mostly by scientific method or research/interrogation. LOST mystery doesn't lend itself to being solved by those means. LOST establishes a mystery through fantastical means - the storyteller says voila, here is a mystery... then says FOOOOM! here is the answer. The viewer has no method to solve the mystery independently of the LOST storyteller. It is easy to solve a LOST mystery - the writers tell you when something is solved... no thinking is required. -- –DocH– my edits 16:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

-OK, I am obviously in the minority. I was just offering an idea to help make the site more appealing, not a big deal. I won't push for the idea anymore. Just in response to the two above posts, William's Visit refers to his visit with Olivia...and LOST actually requires much more thinking than Fringe. If you watch both shows you'll see differences, Fringe is a procedural (most of the time) while Lost has a very complex mythology. Not all the questions were answered but they can be inferred. Perhaps me marking certain mysteries as solved/unsolved is innaccurate, but if it were an actual page, we'd have many people keeping tabs and correcting my mistakes. As of now, I am the sole editor in making this. my talk page is simply a "blueprint" or an example...not the real deal. But no biggie, if no one else wants it, it's not a problem.Games987 17:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

-I think it is unfair to compare Lost and Fringe. Yes, they are both JJ Abrams show but remember that they are not the same show and not playing the same field. Your idea (Games987) is good, but not as of now, it is too early. It may be useful in the later stage of the show. Also, there is only a handful of people helping to run fringepedia, and it is best to put our effort to something we have right now... -- Xerophytes _{Talk | Contribs} 05:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Episodic Characters

I am testing a new way of displaying Portal:Episodic Characters. This has the advantage of not leaving huge white spaces. Number of images per row adjusts to window size. Episode reference has been moved to the episode number appearing on each of the images, thereby allowing a mix of episodes on the same row. And no PortalFiller required (a pain to adjust when inserting). Hovering over the episode number show the episode title and clicking brings you to the episode. Opinion? --Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 18:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

- Now that's an upgrade. Nice. I've been watching you test. Only two minor comments.

1. To me, the EP# seems to be a little low and right in the white background box... maybe centering the ### would be more visually appealing.
2. I check stuff like this on 9 different monitor sizes. All are okay except the 800px wide screen. It's not bad, the pics align to three columns, but there is a wide white band down the right side where you could "almost" fit a fourth column in for the 800px wide users. I think if you could shave around 4-6 pixels of spacing between individual images - that fourth column would then manifest on the small screen (just a thought).

Otherwise, I think it is ready to deploy. -- –DocH– my edits 20:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

- Follow-up. I saw that you dropped the inline;padding: from 10px to 5px. That helped the largest screen that I check (1440px) grow an 8th column, but the 800px needs just about 6 more total pixels to grow a fourth column. The inline;padding would now have drop from 5px to 3px (?). Your call if that is too tight. I like the new transparent white background behind the wording too... much more appealing than the solid white background. --- –DocH– my edits 22:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

- Follow-up 2. That did it. 3px allowed for 4 columns on an 800px screen. Just 2 total pxs to spare on the right buffer margin of the main field. Well deployed! -- –DocH– my edits 22:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete Episodic Character Pages

Getting rid of all the other episodic character pages would be a good next step. One could move all the info from the pages into a table. I'm ready to volunteer for it, I just want to make sure it's ok with Labgo. Mohawkmofelix 16:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

-by this i mean, change it from a portal to a regular page and list all the episodic characters on one page.Mohawkmofelix 17:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

- This was discussed a couple of years ago (see Fringepedia:Ideas/Rejected - first topic). I guess there are some benefits and some drawbacks to this approach. Everything is together but then you increase the chances of collisions on edits and need to download this whole page every time you want to read/add to a character. --Labgo^{Talk|Contribs} 18:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

- Idea Rejected. You might want to check out the Portal:Cast - it is a list of "all the episodic characters on one page" as you suggest. The good thing about the Ep Character page (with images) is that sometimes the visual jogs your memory quicker re: the storyline, than just the name of character. -- –DocH– my edits 18:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)