# Talk:Pilot (Fringe)

Why does it keep getting deleted? It would seem to me to be nifty and useful for the article, as the first episode of the series, to list and describe the cast, not unlike appears in other tv episodic articles. - Hexhand (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, cast lists are usually reserved for the television article's main page.  Within an episode article, the cast is generally within the plot description, like Pilot (House).  Not that I removed the cast list here, I just thought I might comment. Cliff smith talk 17:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
No, you make a valid point, Cliff, and I appreciate you taking the time to bring your concerns here. I took some time to look around at a lot of other "Pilot" episode articles, and the majority of them don't list cast in bulletpoint fashion. Most expand upon them either in Production or in its own subsection, in the terms of a quick characterization and the actor's take on portrayal (cited of course).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hexhand (talk • contribs) 18:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Some general things that need to be done to the article:

The plot needs to be tightened up, it contains some extraneous details (e.g. quoting dialogue, specific scene details). It should be a summary of what is happening. Look at this sentence--"While she races back to the hospital, Scott awakens and suffocates kills the twin brother, also in the same hospital before attempting to escape He is chased by Dunham and eventually crashes, overturning his vehicle."--Not the best use of the English language. The section needs serious work. Secondly, it should be titled "Plot", as you aren't providing a brief description of what is going on, but summarizing all of the events of the pilot. Synopses are shorter that general plot summaries, and usually don't contain spoilers.
List and link all of the actors' names in the plot section, next to their respective roles. This includes anyone whose character name is listed in the plot (not matter how small).
That promotional image needs to come out of the plot section. It can go in the infobox for the article.
Merge all those one-sentence paragraphs in the "Production" section. One should not have one-sentence paragraphs, as it is unprofessional writing.
Bump that Nielsen ratings info down into the "Reception" section, as the fact that 9 million people watched the show from start to finish (or at least kept their TVs on the show) indicates how the public received the show.
The reception section needs cleanup. There is too much direct quoting going on. Wikipedia should not be a mirror for other sites, we should be paraphrasing these critics. This one--"Tim Goodman, of the San Francisco calls the pilot "bloated" and "good but not great". Wondering whether Torv can handle the weight and emotional range of dramatic portrayal, and that Noble's portrayal of Dr.Bishop is "insufferably campy", Goodman recommended that the series could be improved by Noble "dialing back" his portrayal and allowing Torv's character to bloom without romantic involvement."--is a good example of what you should do. Everyone else seems mostly to be in the format of, "Critic X said, 'blah blah blah'." You might also want to think about re-reading those reviews and finding more substance to put in the article. Simple saying, "Critic X thought it sucked", does nothing for the reader. Context is everything. Try making sure you get good, strong sentences (or even compound sentences) out of these reviews. Not those simple statements that are currently there.
I was thrilled to see reviews from reputable sources (e.g. not TV Squad or BuddyTV and their hack, fan writers).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what an awesome assessment, Bignole! That was exactly what we needed. :) Speaking for myself, I will address your concerns right away. Feel free to contribute as you will. :) - Hexhand (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Quick note, since this seems to be becoming a back and forth issue. Per WP:LEAD, we should not link bolded indentifiers in the lead sentence.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've cropped a couple of screen captures from the pilot and uploaded them to PhotoBucket. The link to them is located here. As it appears that the promotional image for the series might have some fiar use problems (probably decorative or #6)I am going to upload at least one of these captures to Wikipedia, to be used in the infobox or body of the article, but would want to get some input as to which image other folks think best demonstrates the article. Thoughts? - Hexhand (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

All images (even screenshots) must meet the fair use criteria, and have critical commentary. Posters are one of the few things allowed in the infobox that don't need direct commentary, as they are usually created to embody the entirety of what they are promoting. Whereas, find a "screenshot" that represents the entire article is somewhat subjective and would require commentary detailing why that image is necessary.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't the argument versus the promo image be that the image doesn't specifically identify the subject of the article, but rather the series itself? I've uploaded an image of Torv as Dunham in the sensory deprivation tank, as it is something specific to the episode. A more poetic sould than I could intimate that it represents her immersion into fringe science, but I would never say that, as it would be utter OR :P. - Hexhand (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose removing some of the links from the External links section as I think they fail WP:EL. Most of the links do not "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic" nor do they add "meaningful, relevant content."  Specifically, the MySpace link adds nothing of value to this episode article. Walter's lab notes is an image that is absolutely meaningless to anyone who hasn't watched the show and gotten very involved in it. The Massive Dynamic page is a game for the series, that is already linked from the main article.
The IMDB episode link doesn't add much to me, but it seems to be a standard link so it just needs its formatting fixed to use the template which I've done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree. I've repeatedly removed those links previously. LeaveSleaves (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
As have I, but after all the reverting, I decided to just post a note. :P-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I would fairly agree with the removal of the MySpace and the Walter's Lab links, but I disagree that the Massive Dynamics one should be removed, as it is an element in this episode (and therefore article) in both the plotline and as a visual element in the episode. As the article is supposed to be a standalone, so some reference to those elements need to be noted. - Hexhand (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The Massive Dynamic site stands as a sort of marketing tool for the series, not particularly the pilot. So an external link here serves no purpose. LeaveSleaves (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it is explicitly introduced in this episode. As articles are all supposed to be self-sufficient, a link specific to the pilot should remain in the pilot. Can it also be in the series article? Sure, and it isn't redundant to list it in both places. - Hexhand (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The external link should serve some purpose as to provide additional information regarding subject matter of the article. The site has no such information. Plus it's written in in-universe style. LeaveSleaves (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
In what way do you think the link doesn't provide any insight into the pilot or article? As well, I am not sure that the external links need to conform to the same non- in-universe style that articles written for Wikipedia have to conform to. Of course, I could be wrong about that; could you indicate where I am worng? - Hexhand (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It is a game, not anything that expands upon the knowledge of the episode. A link in the main episode is fine as it is an official game based on the series, but links in every other episode is superfluous and adds no encyclopedic value. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Two problems with that, AnmaFinotera. First, while its awesome that you are thinking long term ("links in every other episode"), we need only focus on this episode article - which is where the link to the website appears. That it appears as a reality-blurring link is notable in and of itself. You are welcome to disagree, but if you could point out specifically we don't allow these links, that would be fantastic.
Secondly, you have referred to the site as a "game". How so? We can play asteroids or Halo II on it? Could you point out the link to the game? - Hexhand (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, per the article itself, it is a Alternate reality game. It is a game based on the series where you get to pretend its a real company and run around the thing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well, I don't think that's a problem. It isn't a "game" in the traditional sense, but instead serves to increase the impact of the episode in the same way that the phantom ring does. - Hexhand (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It is still a game, and not even a unique one. They had one similar for The Pretender years ago. It is something only a fan of the series will really have any interest in and, again, it adds no encyclopedic value. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, feeling that the reality-blurring value, presented explicitly as it was in the pilot episode warrants noting. - Hexhand (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
If you could you just answer a simple question, what is its encyclopedic value or at least encyclopedic addition to the subject matter? LeaveSleaves (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Indulge me allowing me to answer your question with another one: what is the damage of including the link to a site explicitly noted in the episode? - Hexhand (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
We don't add links because they don't do any damage, we add them to increase the value of the article. LeaveSleaves (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. Explain how they fail to increase the value of the article, seeing as how they provide a dimension to the episode outside of the broadcast. As the episode opens the door to that dimension, it behooves us to note it's presence. - Hexhand (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
You really need to get your intentions straight here. If you don't wish to answer the question, say so. Don't create a redundant spiral that is leading us to nothing. You don't say something's good by proving it is not 'not good', but by actually establishing its credibility. LeaveSleaves (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe I have already answered you, LS. Twice. I noted that including the link expands and improives the article by indicating a where it was used in the series as a reality-blurring tool, which increases the impact of the plot. My turning the question back upon itself was to learn how you are interpreting the subject matter, and whether it is supported by the actual policy and guidelines or is a personal interpretation. - Hexhand (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


### Request for project input
This is getting us no where. I've posted at the TV project for additional opinions per the dispute resolution process (since its 3 of us disagreeing, 3O wasn't an appropriate option). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to that post? - Hexhand (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Still waitingon that link, AnmaFinotera. Would you mind terribly taking a moment and posting it, please? - Hexhand (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
AnmaFinotera's post.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. - Hexhand (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I have neither watched this episode nor read this article (don't want to spoil the fun until it airs in my country) but what about putting the Massive Dynamics EL into a footnote and leave it out of the EL section? That would/could give the right amount of weight to it and please both parties. (Ignore this comment if I am talking rubbish.) – sgeureka t•c 20:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It isn't a bad idea, Sgeureka. What do others think? - Hexhand (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree. A footnote is something that either explains a point that can't be or is too complicated to be explained inline. The website does no such thing. I fail to understand how the link expands the article's information production, viewer perception etc. of the episode. As for expansion on plot, the website provides no details on any of the storylines in the plot. It simply is a marketing gimmick. LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Even though it is a marketing gimmick (like a website, as used in Blair Witch, etc.), that doesn't negate its usefulness, and the fact that it is initiated immediately in the series. Such was not done with Lost. That the viral marketing (as well as the rest of the bag of tricks) was initiated from the get-go suggests that it is deserving of mention. - Hexhand (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
My thinking was that I'd prefer to external-link to this website in the article text, but when I did just this in one of my FACs a year ago (also a non-EL-section-worthy external link that had relevance for a sentence), it was pointed out to me that the only option to include that EL in the article was to use a footnote. I am just passing on this solution, and have no invested interest in the Fringe EL otherwise. – sgeureka t•c 17:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a link to that article, so we can see an example of you are suggesting? - Hexhand (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pilot (Fringe)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
This might be me, but in the Plot, "Walter uses his work on fringe science to synchronize Dunham's brainwaves with the comatose Scott's", this sentence reads very odd. Again, this is just me.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
In the Production section, you might want to correctly link "BitTorrent" to its correspondence article. In the Production section, "Abrams said that Torv was cast because she was a combination of "sophistication, great talent, amazing looks and a complexity that is the key to the character being an interesting central character", the source should be mentioned after the quote has concluded, per here. Do the same for ---> "Executive producer Burk denied the claims, saying that "we hate putting anything out there until it's done, and that's really the reason why you guys didn't get any advance copies" and "Abrams said that while the production crew "freaked out" about the leak, he was pleased that the "response has been much more positive than not, especially for something that wasn't completed yet".
Check.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 
Is TV Fodder a reliable source?
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reviews! :) I fixed all the above issues, so hopefully everything is now fine. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 23:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome for them. I'm assuming for this one. :) You have, though, I'm still "mixed" with the sentence I mentioned above. But, like I said, it was just all me. Anyways, back to business. Thank you to Cornucopia for getting the stuff I left at the talkpage, cause I have gone off and passed the article to GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 02:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

OH boy I just clicked on that and it took me to a website and may have been infected with a virus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtin (talk • contribs) 03:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Pilot (Fringe). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=47430
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=47832
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/television/reviews/article_display.jsp?JSESSIONID=kCgnLG5b2Z3Hvp2J2pP6yt6Yw6pB1Nd2RMCtWnRt1NTLNsbyTn3z%212135715977&&rid=11637
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/television/1152182%2CCST-FTR-fringe09.article
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110216070954/http://www.fox.com/fringe/recaps/season-1/episode-1 to http://www.fox.com/fringe/recaps/season-1/episode-1/
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) 02:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pilot (Fringe). 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4281948.html?page=all
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209071141/http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/iltw/2008/09/07/pork_ravioli_bite/ to http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/iltw/2008/09/07/pork_ravioli_bite/
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) 01:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)