Talk:The X-Files/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Xfpisher's edits, part deux

From the 'personal attacks' section.

///The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Wikipedia editors, go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate.////

E, it's time for this whole "XFpisher's edits" thing to go, and never return. It was never appropriate in the first place--it constitutes a form of personal attack in itself, whether it was intended as such or not (and I'm sure it wasn't). We don't discuss each other--that invariably leads to misunderstandings and worse. I certainly agree I've said some things about you that were unwarranted, and I apologize. But I only did so after you started a whole discussion about me and my edits, simply because you disagreed with them. And now look what we've got here. Time for this whole section to be deleted. In future, let's stick to the facts, and avoid speculations on each other's motives. Highly inaccurate speculations, at that. Xfpisher 18:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, I'm starting a new section cause it's a pain to scroll all the way down each time.

Anyway, you said the page doesn't list him, but it does. I already said the only credit listed is director: Chris Carter.

Does it strike me as odd... a little, but I could not word the article to reflect that, because of NPOV. We are here to report the facts. If those strike other people as odd, then so be it. And if not, so be that. We're not here to make judgments or tell people how to react. Actually, what I find odd is the fact that an IMDb page was created at all. I think they should've waited for a more official comment and learned from past mistakes. But alas, they didn't, and so, our hands are tied. We must report what happened and leave our opinions at the door.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

12:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I screwed up there, and we'll leave the IMDb thingy as is for now, as I said--but here's a problem--you screwed up worse. You said Carter didn't comment on the timeline. Pardon me for bringing this up, but that's about as wrong as one could possibly get it--the timeline is all EW is really asking him about, because Duchovny and Anderson got the idea from Carter that there was a very specific and immediate timeline, which was clearly not the case. He's being evasive and noncommittal in his comments, and clearly didn't want to discuss how they got to be so misinformed, but he is commenting on the timeline, when he basically says there isn't one, because the studio hasn't been in any hurry to decide on one. You do have to change the way that reads--it does come across as you trying to put the best possible face on things for the 'creatives', whether that's your intention or not. The bottom line is that Chris Carter told EW that things are moving so slowly that the project may not get past its present stage of PRE-predevelopment before the looming entertainment strike hits, which would be many months from now, if it comes at all. Now try and fix it--I'll give you another chance to get it right. I understand it's important to you to put it in your own words. But don't take too long. Let's avoid another edit-war, if at all possible. Xfpisher 22:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

People involved in a project will state what's currently thought to be true about it, as accurately as can be established at that point in time. You view this as some kind of official timeline that has been irrevocably broken. This isn't necessarily so. If you consider it to be some kind of sacred promise whenever someone talks to the press about a movie, then you'll be facing constant disappointment. A project is, by nature, something that changes.

No one said anything about the project being greenlighted when Duchovny made his comments, so anyone who thought they necessarily reflected an official schedule were simply incorrect. Duchovny just told the reporters what was told to him. He made a comment about something he was involved in. People do that. If there ends up being a discrepancy, due either to Carter's or Duchovny's judgment, it doesn't matter. It's a creative process, it's a beginning project; nothing is certain and things will change. Answering a few curious reporters regarding its status and what the current predictions are doesn't constitute a binding contract.

Whether or not the predictions will end up being accurate is something we don't know yet, and Carter has not yet commented on -- a fact which I stated. If you're saying you want to take the Duchovny statement and the most recent Carter statement, show a conflict and offer a conclusion explaining its implications, that would not be NPOV.

It doesn't matter to me at all where the article wording comes from. I don't edit every statement that comes into this or any article. Your edits tend not to be as neutral as they could be, and that's why you see me editing your statements often.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

05:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Duchnovny told reporters the script was done, and he told them when the movie would be shot, and made it very clear his information came from Chris Carter. Gillian Anderson repeated the same information as if it was a fact, either on the basis of hearing it from Carter or Duchovny. The press was a bit skeptical, but never having heard any of them be this specific before, gave it a fair bit of credence. Then just a few weeks later, Carter says the script ISN'T done, and he has no idea when or if shooting will commence, and basically not one thing has changed since he agreed to start writing a script (without any guarantee of a film being actually made, which he repeatedly said he would never do). The movie could be made years from now, or never. This is Carter commenting on the timeline, btw. So it's laughably inaccurate to say he didn't comment on a timeline. And you look at a factually inaccurate edit, and leave it the way it is, while deleting inarguably accurate and sourced edits.

Never mind. I'll fix it myself. As many times as necessary. Xfpisher 19:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any proof that the press gave it "credence", although I admit I'm not sure of what consequence that would be. If Carter said the actors would see the script soon and then that didn't end up happening, this is an example of people being characteristically inaccurate when it comes to predictions of future events. I plan to have eggs for breakfast tomorrow morning and I'm comfortable telling you that even though I haven't even checked if there any in the fridge. I'm not under any legal obligation to make absolutely certain that things turn out the way I'd like them to, and if they don't, then reasonable people will forgive me.

Granted, the plan may have hit a snag. It may have hit a million snags. Things didn't end up going as planned, and more things will undoubtedly end up going wrong. Does this mean that we should therefore have a berating tone for our encyclopedia article? Shall we imply through selective reporting and specific language in order to convey our negative reactions to the fact that Carter seems to be bad at predicting what will happen with his project? Shall we even fundamentally describe that conclusion? No. We will not. You need to find a venue to voice your opinions. I suggest IRC or message boards.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Shall we make the most naively upbeat face on things that can possibly be made, under the circumstances? Shall we be FOX News reporting on Iraq? Why is that the default setting? I seem to recall the mantra of the show this article is devoted to was "Trust No One". It's not a bad mantra for Wikipedia, either. You did WATCH the show, didn't you?

Of course the article shouldn't be a diatribe against Carter's myriad inaccuracies, which you interpret quite differently from myself, and you are welcome to your interpretation, as is everyone else. There are serious conflicts in testimony here, and it's not in any way a violation of Wikipedia editing guidelines to highlight them, and let people make their own minds up. Many people aren't going to bother to click TWICE to read the interview. You had no reason to make the passage less informative, basically cutting the quote down to nothing. After all, how can I be maligning the man with HIS OWN WORDS? That being said, I'll let your edit of my edit stand, since you gave me some leeway to inform the reader, and we both surely have better things to do than argue over trivialities (well, I hope).

If you want the chapter to be shorter, can I make a suggestion? Why not try deleting that passage where Carter tells TV Guide he signed Duchovny and Anderson to appear in a movie that has no green light, hasn't entered the budgeting process, might not be made until after the entertainment strike, and may never be made at all? Sure like to know how he managed that. Xfpisher 00:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Your stance is to berate Carter. Since my involvement with this article, all your talk page comments have revolved around that. You would be fooling yourself if you thought this didn't come out in the words you choose for the article.

I've tried to tell you that I'm not on any particular "side" in this. I don't have any specific trust or distrust for Carter's comments. Often I even share your skepticism. I'd like to see the movie get made, but I don't have any particular opinion about whether or not it will happen. If my edits look as though they always make Carter look better, it's because yours made him look so bad to begin with, in contrast.

My goal here is to accurately represent the reference material. If the section could just be a collection of pastes from the respective news sites, I would be fine with that; but it can't be that way. I interpret my duty as an editor of this section to be to shorten and paraphrase the references, so that their wording is changed enough to state the exact same things the references did, but using different words. Nothing more. As deadpan as those news articles sound, so should our article. That's what neutrality means.

You don't have a neutral point of view. You dislike Carter. You know this. You should consider the possibility that your article wording reflects it.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

01:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a perfectly neutral point of view--that somehow encompasses your wanting (very very much, it would seem) to see another X-Files movie. Balderdash. You see me as biased, because I don't have the same bias as you. I don't have a neutral POV, neither do you, and neither does anyone who has ever edited a Wikipedia article on any subject. Objectivity means looking at all the facts, not being without bias. I allow for my biases. You don't. You try to skew things towards the most optimistic reading possible. That EW interviewer, who was actually talking to Carter, practically dripped skepticism. I really have to ask--did you read it?

Read THIS--specifically the series of entries on the righthand side--

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/preview/1808406645

Can you honestly not see that Carter is evading the EW interviewer's questions? The interviewer certainly could. Xfpisher 22:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you as biased because you advertise that fact. Every time you've made a comment on this talk page, since I've been involved, it has been to speak negatively of Carter and suggest that the article doesn't adequately enough depict just how inconsequential he is. That appears to be your only concern. During my time here I haven't seen you make any edits or comments that had to do with anything else.

Yes I read the EW interview. I would not have edited the statements otherwise. I'm not sure what your interpretation his tone has to do with anything. I similarly can't see the relevance of suggesting that Carter is evading questions. Are you suggesting that we should say those things in the article -- that he was evading questions, and that an interviewer sounded skeptical? I would of course say that neither of those things belong in the article, since they are opinions. "Can you honestly not see..." - Whether or not I agree with your assessment is inconsequential. If I agree with you I still can't include these things in the article.

If you're not suggesting those things for inclusion in the article, and you're just arguing for the sake of argument, that's not what talk pages are for. Please let me know if you have a concern about the article.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

01:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

E, you accuse me of bias, while admitting yours. By the standards you apply, nobody could edit Dick Cheney's Wikipedia article, unless they either had a favorable opinion of him or no opinion at all--that would certainly narrow the field. I'm not, btw, opposed to an X-Files movie--like most people, I don't care if there's another one or not, but have a longtime interest in Carter's bizarre rise and fall. By dint of long and careful study of his public utterances, I just happen to have a better grasp of the available facts, which is why I keep calling it right. You, otoh, freely admit you want another one, and this clearly slants your approach to the facts--to the point where you say Carter had no comment on the timeline, when in fact he commented extensively--in such a way as to further undermine his credibility. There's no default setting that says you assume the best of everyone's intentions and honesty. After somebody has repeatedly said things that turn out to be untrue, the opposite can and should be the case.

If you really don't want to debate me further on this--don't respond to me. You don't have to get the last word in this discussion. You are not in charge of anything here. I'm one editor, you're another--and I'm hardly the only editor you've had disagreements with. I will continue to make sure this article reflects the facts, not your hopeful fannish wishes. I believe in Wikipedia's guidelines--and think you do a bad and biased job of interpreting them, all the more so because you can't recognize your own bias AS a bias. Capish?Xfpisher 14:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not accusing you of anything. When I say you are biased, that means that you have a clear opinion one way or the other. Whether or not you make biased edits to the article is another matter entirely.

I never said your bias comes from whether or not you want another movie to be made. I said your bias comes from your opinion of Carter.

I'm also not saying that a biased person can't make edits. On the contrary, please continue to make all the edits you want. I never claimed you should stop and I never will (barring unforeseen events). I similarly never claimed to be in charge of anything here, and again, I never will.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

14:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

E, my opinion of Carter comes from the facts. I used to think fairly well of the guy--then I learned the facts. It's a big club. Hope you can join someday. Xfpisher 16:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted material not relevant to improving the article, as per wp:Talk page guidelines.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

03:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Toomsx.jpg

Image:Toomsx.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Independent.co.uk uses Wikipedia for research

I don't know who else will find this interesting, but I came across this paragraph in an article (http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2779435.ece) about Anderson's latest sequel comments:

“ Carter, 50, was originally advised that Anderson was not the right shape for the part of Scully but was determined that she was by far the best candidate. He set up Ten Thirteen Productions, named after his birthday, to make the show, which he dreamt up after having become bored of working on comedy programmes. ”

Those are our words, people. This is pretty much a rearranged version of the first paragraph of the "Idea & pilot" section.

Not excited? Oh well. I was.

Equazcion 02:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is something to be pretty excited about. It just go's to show that peoples' hard work can pay off and be used in a national publication which some journalist can get a pat on the back from his editor for writing. Scarian^Talk 06:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sequel

Xfpisher,

The credits listed in actors' resumes on IMDb are the same credits listed on the projects' pages themselves. The project doesn't appear on Duchovny and Anderson's pages because their names don't appear on the project page. Chris Carter's name does, and the project also appears on his page. I've rewritten the statement to simplify this.

Also, you can't say what IMDb does "frequently" without referencing it -- and besides, as I'm sure was the purpose of that edit, I think we've already quantified just how much credence this event should garner: The statement of pages being created in the past for this project and being subsequently deleted already serves that purpose.

And once again, would you please provide edit summaries when you make significant edits? The fact that you don't leaves the impression that even you can't justify what you're doing.

Thank you.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cite journal

In reference to the recently-posted/removed TV Guide report: If there is no web link available to a print source, use the {{cite journal}} template. This template lets you include things like date, issue number, and page number, so that readers can easily find the referenced quote in a printed copy.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

17:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

TV Guide is a journal? Anyway, thanks. I won't restore the edit until such time as I can properly cite it. Perhaps it will become unnecessary to restore it, if Duchovny (or someone else) makes further clarifying statements in the meantime. Xfpisher 17:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Magazines are not necessarily journals by definition, but for Wikipedia purposes, they are referenced using the same method.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

17:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure all the information called for in the journal citation template is relevant to TV Guide--do all those spaces need to be filled in? Basically, all people need is title, date, author, and page #'s. Sometimes these templates are very finicky, in my experience, which is why I ask. Isn't there a template specific to commercial magazines, as opposed to academic journals? Xfpisher 20:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not all fields in the template are required. See the usage examples shown at Template:Cite journal for the minimum required fields. I think the fields you listed should be fine, and will cause the reference to display correctly. Just be sure to also include the "journal=" field, which is for the name of the publication -- which in this case would be "TV Guide". If you're still not sure how exactly to code the reference, just do your best and I'll fix it afterwards.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

20:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion removed

A discussion that was not relevant to improving the article has been removed. Please see wp:Talk page guidelines.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

15:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject X-Files

Would anyone be interested joining? I have created another WikiProject for South Park so I know what I'm doing.

Mr. Garrison •my userpage• my talk• my contributions•

• NOTE: I've moved this comment to the bottom of the page because I think the idea should be revisited. I've always liked the idea of having dedicated projects for popular series and having individual pages for each episode with information like trivia, cultural references, complete synopsis, spoilers for those who want to read the outcome, etc. — like The Simpsons has. Thoughts? Equazcion 08:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in joining such a project. --Belovedfreak 15:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As would I. Scarian^Talk 19:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Be careful. Trivia isn't wanted on Wikipedia. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 22:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That depends who you ask, but thanks for the warning.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

03:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested too. At the very least this article should be broken up in line with Wiki guidelines. I'd do it but it'd require considerable change, and Equazcion I see this has been your pet project, wouldn't want to upset your apple cart too much... DeanO 01:20, 18 August 2007 (AEST)

Wikipedia is not a collection of pet projects. I may have taken the most interest in this one, but anyone is free to make changes at any time, which I welcome especially to make the article more "in-line" with Wikipedia guidelines. I've actually been thinking of ways to split up the article, so if you have a good idea in mind, by all means proceed.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

02:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Idea

I'm a casual Wikipedia reader and I'd like it if there was some cleanup on the episode summaries. ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.85.70 (talk • contribs)

If you see an article that needs some cleanup, feel free to get started on it yourself. Just click "edit this page" at the top of the article. :)

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

21:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to perform a major cleanup this week. This article is WAY too full of mid-sentence factoids and asides. It took me over 20 minutes to read the entire thing, and I am a very fast reader. 97.82.247.200 00:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So much for integration of trivia. You may want to consider splitting the article up though, rather than cutting out massive amounts of content. Even if you remove all the asides, you won't make that significant a change. This article needs to be about a quarter of its current length at most, and that just ain't happening. A split seems a more appropriate option. Like create an article for each sub-heading of the History section, or just create one article for the entire history section -- call it History of The X-Files or something.

Those are just thoughts though for the larger-scale of things. I'm sure there's still plenty of smaller-scale cleanup to that can be done.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 02:09, 09/19/2007

I agree. Personally, I'd never presume to attempt such a task as splitting this large of an article. So, until someone does, I feel I can condense while removing little to none of the relevant content. There really is a lot of extraneous stuff sandwiched in there. Fix that while condensing the article's verbosity, and I believe it could be trimmed by 30-50% in length, which is a factor, but it's all the extraneous, irrelevant stuff that makes it such a difficult read. I'll take a stab at it tomorrow afternoon. 97.82.247.200 02:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Expanding the "Unofficial mythology episodes"

I recently expanded this section, but it was undone by Equazcion. I intend to re-instantiate it unless someone can provide with a reason for which I ought. I will also insert a reference this time, to http://www.myth-x.org/SiteMap.htm which agrees with my list, with the exception of the episode "Avatar", which I feel was rightly included in the original list. Either way, an additional edit, which I perhaps should have done separately, was to correct a typo. The episode "Deadalive" should be correctly capitalised as "DeadAlive". DeanO 01:44, 18 August 2007 (AEST)

I will never remove properly referenced information, so go for it.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

02:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Spam

An abusive user has been spamming on articles related to X-Files actors (Robert Patrick, Gillian Anderson etc.) that said actor/actress "is known to use the nom de plume DFowley when posting to X-Files-related websites and newsgroups." with the edit description of "Some additional information". His different screennames include User:Hjmmjbo and User:Upnnz. Algabal 10:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You can add Ebwje (Contribs) to that list. He's done the same thing 4 times to David Duchovny.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

00:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I reported all 3 users at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and they've been blocked.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

01:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out! Algabal 01:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure :)

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

01:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You guys are best buddies :).--Celinelewins 18:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unofficial mythology section

This section is a breeding ground for frequent changes based on the whims of readers. To prevent this, if you want to make a change (addition and/or deletion) please at least do one of the following:

• Post a reference. Being that this is an unofficial list, all you would need to do is reference a reasonably reputable fan site that agrees with your edit.
• If you can't post a ref, at least explain your reasoning here in the talk page so that it can be discussed.

As a general rule, I would say in my humble opinion, that only episodes that advance the plot of the mythology should be included. Episodes about things, people, or ideas that have never been mentioned before and are never mentioned again should be omitted. In other words, there should be a significant impact on the mythology storyline in order for an episode to be considered mythology.

If this section changes too frequently I'm going to simply remove it. And I have every reason to do so -- by its very nature the section is only asking for trouble, and it really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article anyway, being unofficial. A request for moderation would result in it being removed -- of that I'm fairly certain.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

00:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Unnatural (season 6)

Hi, I think we should include the episode The Unnatural from season 6 in the list, because the episode show how the extraterrestrial can live on the earth, how they can be all different and ( I think, but I am not sure) it's the first episode to show that there is one extraterrestrial race (instead of two like you could believe from the other episodes, 1 gray and 1 human-like) Paldiski 02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We already knew extraterrestrials could live on earth from previous episodes. And since they can shape-shift, we knew that they can all be different. I'm also pretty sure that even after this episode there are still separate races -- little gray men, bounty hunters, rebels, and (later on) super-soldiers. Everything about that episode is really a standalone story, even though it incorporates aliens. Its events are never brought up again and it had no implications outside the episode itself. But anyone else is welcome to comment on this.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

06:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Unnatural features the Alien Bounty Hunter and reveals his true form, a gray alien. Even though this might not have been mentioned again, it is obvious to me that The Unnatural contains pretty strong mythology elements and should be in. I vote for it to be included.--Exer 505 01:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like to get more opinions on this, but there don't seem to be that many people paying attention to this talk page recently. So if you want to put the episode back in the "unofficial" list, I'll support that; at least until more people comment on it.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 03:02, 09/18/2007

Okay, after waiting a good month for another comment, I decided just to put The Unnatural in that section. Maybe when people see it, they will comment..........--Exer 505 02:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's not on the official Mythology DVD, it's not a mythology episode. Whoa2000 18:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC) I realize the flaw in this statement since I didn't notice there was an Unofficial Mythology section when I wrote it. I tried to delete this, my OWN flawed statement but got warned and had the statment re-added. Why? I know it's bad practice to delete someone else's statements, but this was my own, flawed, not-responded-to statement. Whoa2000 14:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, don't worry. It's all good. :)--Exer 505 03:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why was the Unofficial section removed? I see discussion about how it can change too much, but did it really need to be removed. When going through the episodes, I found those mentioned in the unofficial list proved instrumental to the series, more so than did some of the official mytharc episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.82.235 (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Because its uncited, unofficial information added by fans. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Who decides what's unofficial and what's not?--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It was already discussed down here, and even if more fans were to agree with you, it would still be against policy. If you want, I can bring an administrator here and ask his opinion.--CyberGhostface 02:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Aliens home planet ?

Does any one knows where the aliens go after leaving earth ?--Jonybond 11:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The show never gives any clues to that, as far as I know. The closest thing is a radio signal that gets received, and I believe they determine which area of space the signal came from (I could be confusing this with the movie Contact though). The show isn't so much about the aliens as it is about the conspiracy that revolves around them, so there isn't much mention of outer-space matters. The aliens are a McGuffin, in a limited sense; something that moves the plot along but the details of which don't matter so much.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

20:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I see but I hope in the next episode the show must have a clues regarding where the aliens goes after leaving earth.--Celinelewins 18:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

En-masse deletion attempt for episode articles

In case anyone isn't aware, an attempt is being made at AFD to delete a swath of individual episode articles here. 23skidoo 17:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Splitting this article

Everyone agrees that this article (currently at 136KB) needs to be split up, but no one's really offered up any serious discussion on how to do it.

The History section is by far the largest, and probably the only section worth considering for a split. The first subsection of History can probably stay ("Idea and pilot"), but here are the options for the remaining 94KB of the History section, as I see them:

1. Move the entire History section into its own single article, and replace with summary. The resulting History article would still be quite long though.
2. Split each History subsection into its own article, replacing with summaries. Each current subsection, and therefore each resulting article, would describe one season of the show.
3. Cut the History section down significantly first, worrying about splits later (I offer this last option because I know some editors might see the current History section as simply too long and full of non-notable information, however this is a view I am pretty sure I disagree with).

Please offer your thoughts on these or additional suggestions. Thanks.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:06, 09/28/2007

Hi! After a very quick first look, I'd propose to trim the "Future of The X-Files" section down to one paragraph, summarizing the main article where you can go into detail. I know you are looking for clues on how to split the article, but I thought I pointed that out up front, since its an easy remedy to slim the article down a bit. Greetings, Johnnyw talk 18:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

After second glance, the following ideas come to mind:

• merge "Episode types", "Idea and plot" into a new subarticle, replace it with a summary
• move season 1 to season 9 into its own article, replace it w/ a summary
• convert "list of characters" into a paragraph of prose, adding a short summary of the list of recurring characters to that paragraph
• move both character tables (merging with main article "list of recurring characters...") into a new article "List of X-Files characters"

Which would produce this article layout (truncated)

• Cast of characters
• Idea and plot structures
• History
  • Pilot
  • Season 1-5
  • Film
  • 6-9
  • Future of The X-Files

After the changes proposed above, all of these sections would be summaries of their main articles, significantly reducing the article size, and making it more accessible to casual readers. I hope these suggestions have been helpful.. All the best, Johnnyw talk 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "Idea & pilot" should stay in this article. Not everything needs to be split off. This article is about the show, after all, and the "idea" of the show along with its pilot episode are more central to a general understanding of the show than are the descriptions of the seasons. Otherwise I agree with most of this. I'd ideally like to get some more discussion going before I do anything... I just know that as soon as I make a bold edit to this article a hundred people will complain. I'll wait a little bit longer and see. I appreciate the comprehensive suggestion.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 12:29, 10/8/2007

Should the separate X-files sequel page be revived? If that last item on the X-files sequel section of this page is true, then that should justify having the recently-deleted page be remade. Whoa2000 18:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if it has not already been done, that page should be revived. Then, a lot of the "future of The X-Files" section from this article could be put over there. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Split

I've performed the main brunt of the split, and fixed the incidental sourcing problems in this articles (named ref tags that referred to refs described in the history section, which are now no longer present), however there are still many such broken refs in the History of The X-Files article. There is also additional summarizing needed, such as for the movie, which was moved along with the rest of the history. A summary of the history itself would probably also be needed -- I'm not sure where to start with that myself.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:58, 10/11/2007

Explain Please

I have attempted to remove redundant information (speculation about whether a new X-Files movie will be made or not) and replace it with factual information (Confirmation by [[Twentieth Century Fox, etc) yet the information is being reverted and I've received warnings for "blanking the page". I'd prefer to believe this is an eror of some kind and not the work of an anti-Chris Carter, anti-X-Files 2 zealot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.245.44 (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've restored your edits at least twice so far. Certain people appear to have assumed "ownership" of this article. Why they are trying to suppress the new information I don't know. Twentieth Century Fox have officially announced the new movie, so why not allow that fact to be stated on the page? Surely that news constitutes belongs under the "Future of The X-Files" headline? Also I am NOT a sock puppet! Those claims have only been made in an effort to undermine me. Rabidly Placid 18:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This claim has been made because your account seems to have popped into existence in order to continue User:210.54.245.44's edit war without getting blocked for a 3RR limit violation. Please read: WP:3RR. --Pleasantville 18:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who Rabidly Placid is but I do know they aren't me. What I would like to know is why you feel my edits aren't acceptable. Thanks a bunch.210.54.245.44 —Preceding comment was added at 19:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the objection of people such as RepublicanJacobite, Pleasantville, and Scarian to clearly stating the public fact that Twentieth Century Fox have officially confirmed the new X-Files movie? I see that Scarian is protecting David Duchovny from any criticism on the Californication entry and is most probably a Rabid, but what is the problem from the other Wikipedia members POV with listing the fact that the new movie is official? A sensible answer would be nice. (One which doesn't resort to childish distraction techniques, such as allegations of sock puppetry or vandalism.)210.54.245.44 21:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha - I can't even pronounce his surname let alone care about defending him from "criticism". Scarian^Talk 21:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

gosh within minutes of my edit both RepublicaJacobite and Scarian are back to defend their edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.245.44 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproyect: The X-Files in proposal

You can sign in to the proyect, now is just a proposal, here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frao61 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Future of The X-Files

There have been a great many edits to this section of the article recently, and many (perhaps most) of them have not been helpful. We need to discuss this matter here and come to some conclusions about what this section should say, how long it should be, etc. For now, I am going to revert to the old version, and encourage everyone to leave it be until some decisions are made and consensus is reached. My personal feeling is that the old(er) version is better, but that it needs to be edited to remove some of the old speculation. A short, well-referenced section that concludes with the confirmation that a second film is being made would be best. A long discussion of "past speculation" seems unnecessary. What do other people think? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you. Short, sweet and succinct. (Alliteration is wonderful :-) Scarian^Talk 22:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In what way have the edits not been helpful? The unedited article does not make clear that the new movie has been confirmed by Twentieth Century Fox. I have added those facts. You continually revert the article back to the original state. How are your edits helpful when all they do is (intentionally) obscure the known facts? This article desperately needs moderation by people who AREN'T rabid Duchovny fans and who aren't rabidly anti-Chris Carter! Otherwise we are going to be left with an article which makes it appear that the movie is still unconfirmed, when in fact it has been officially and publicly confirmed by Twentieth Century Fox.210.54.245.44 22:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm so confused... how is it obscuring facts? It seems to me (an outside observer, I know nothing of the X-files) that the part you're moving is the conclusion of the rest of the stuff in the section, which you're labeling "previous speculation" are these things seperate? If so, how? Because they seems directly connected to me, and moving them makes them seem so. Gscshoyru 22:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The section is titled "Future of the X-Files". We know now that the new movie is official. Why bury that under the pile of mostly speculative and completely outdated stuff about it being in "development hell" or that Gillian Anderson really hopes it will happen this time? This is an encyclopedia and the known facts should therefore take priority over out dated old information. Instead the facts are being hidden away at the bottom of a section mostly composed of speculative material.210.54.245.44 22:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Because chronological order is the way to go? In all seriousness, you can probably re-write the prose to be something like "the movie is confirmed, etc, but it had a rocky history, etc. Without the "rocky history" POV, anyways. Splitting them into two sections is unnecessary and also gives readers the wrong idea. Gscshoyru 22:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the film has now been confirmed, the sequel article (which apparently existed once upon a time) can and should be revived (if this has not already happened), and then a lot of the information in this "future" section can be moved over there. There is no reason whatsoever to have two sections to deal with the same material. And, as Gscshoyru quite correctly says, the information given should be in chronological order. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

About the unofficial mytharc section

A guy deleted the section for no real reason, and without discussing the deletation in the forum, and I got blamed for trying to restore it, anyone could restore it please? Paldiski (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who deleted it. And I did give it a reason. For the reasons that you mentioned...its unofficial. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. There was no sources at all. Its just fans listing off episodes that they think are tied to the mythology with nothing to back it up. Who decides what's on it and what's not? I suggest you check out Wikipedia's policy on 'fancruft' and then see if you still think there's a good reason for it to be on an encyclopedia article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What a good reason.... I still think you should have posted before removing it. You seems to forget that these episodes are important to clearly understand the storyline. I am thinking of Sleepless, for example, that introduce Krycek and X without behind a "real" mytharc episode. These episodes are clearly part of the mytharc. Someone who only follow the official mytharc will probably wonder where these importants characters come from. Anyway, I am not really good in english and I will let other step in to defend the section with better argument than mine. Paldiski (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion of their importance might be, if they are not part of the "official" myth-arc, then they cannot be listed in this article. An "unofficial" myth-arc automatically means someone's opinion, not verified fact. As CyberGhostface has correctly pointed out, this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying "I think this is part of the mytharc because of so and so" is original research. What if I thought The Host was a mytharc because it introduced X (or at least his voice)? Why is E.B.E. not there? Who decides what counts as an unofficial mythology? Can fans just add on and other fans can remove if they disagree?

If it clearly violates policy I don't need to ask anyone's permission before removing it. But in retrospect, if I knew that this was going to be a big problem, I would have posted a message on the talk page explaining in more detail why I deleted it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's Silly, There's plenty of "Unofficial" Stuff on wikipedia. If we only listed official things here then there wouldn't be any "controversy" section in the iraq war article. How can new fans know which episodes to watch if it's not listed or linked to anywhere? Speaking as a brand new X-Files fan (I'm only on season 2 right now), I would be terribly confused if I came across this article today, and not a week ago when the "unofficial" articles were listed. Clearly you know alot about X-Files episodes so why not add things that the producers left out here in this article? It could only serve to help people, I doubt anyone but hardcore fans would be "annoyed." I'm reverting it to put it back how it was for people interested in learning about this great show.--74.67.184.174 (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted you once again. Believe it or not, but it is not the purpose of this article to be of "help" to new fans of this, or any, tv show. This is an encyclopedia, which means we present verifiable fact, not opinions that one person or another believes will be "helpful" for viewers of the program. If there are other articles that contain false, misleading, or otherwise questionable material, strive to remove said material from those articles. But, do not use this unfortunate fact as a justification for adding similarly-questionable material to this article. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Iraqi war controversy...are you allowed to make up your own, unverified facts in the article? No. I'm willing to bet most of the controversy is cited by secondary sources. Of course, comparing an actual event to the canon of a fictional television show is silly.

This is the situation. The X-Files has a clearcut set of episodes that deal with the mythology. Fact. The 'unofficial list' is a list of episodes chosen by some editors with no background sources to back them up that they think are part of the mythology because...well, they think so. Who decides whats an 'unofficial' mythology and what's not? Why is E.B.E. not up there, as it dealt with aliens and Deep Throat? Why not The Host, because it introduced X? Or Tooms, because it had the Cigarette Smoking Man's first line of dialogue? I could go on and on, but this counts as original research: "Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses." In other words, don't go around saying "This is a mythology episode" unless you have a reliable source to back it up. If its not part of the mythology canon that was laid out by the producers, then maybe there's a good reason why.

As for "What the fans want"...what the fans want isn't necessarily what's good for the encyclopedia. I'm willing to bet a lot of fans would like a page where they can post their own personal theories concerning the Alien Bounty Hunter and Samantha, but that doesn't stop it from being in clear violation of the policy.

End of subject. There's no contesting this.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

E.B.E. IS on the list, for the obvious reasons you stated. The Episode itself is a verifiable source. Like you said, The episode "The Host" introduced the character X. What was your source? THE EPISODE TITLED "The Host". Your argument is flawed because they are ALL official episodes, the difference being that some contribute to the overall "major" plot line even though their individual "minor" plots may be contained within their individual episodes. Clearly your opinion is in the Minority here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.251.52 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

*takes a big, deep breath*

It doesn't matter if everyone disagrees with me. Policy supercedes concensus. Always.

The episodes don't count as sources themselves, sorry. For the umpteenth time, calling an episode mythology based off events in the episode when the creators have said it is not, counts as ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I don't know how many times I have to say this before you understand it. THE ONLY MYTHOLOGY EPISODES ARE THE ONES CALLED 'MYTHOLOGY' BY THE CREATORS OF THE SHOW. PERIOD. Posting YOUR idea of what constitues as one based on YOUR rules and passing it off as FACT in an ENCYCLOPEDIA is in clear violation of policy.

If you're still in disagreement about this, I can bring this to the attention of an admin noticeboard. Heck, if anyone contests this again, that's just what I'll do.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Might I point out that there is only one user [Poss. using his I.P. and account(s)] defending the inclusion of the "unofficial myth-arc" and there are several users in favour of removing it? Which, to me, signifies a consensus (Since agreeable discussion has taken place) has been reached. Thus, the Unofficial Mytharc (because it is unsourced and by nature WP:POV) should be removed and reverted until its advocates come up with referencing to prove it's worth. Ja? Scarian^Talk 22:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop with your pointless accusation. I can assure you that 72.43.251.52 user is not me. My ip is 74.56.120.72 and you can verify this easely that we are not the same person. Paldiski (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

IPs can change, so your statement is essentially meaningless. The point is, it is only yourself and (perhaps) a couple of anonymous users who want that section kept. Regardless, it violates policy, and so it will be reverted. Oh, and do not change the formatting on other people's comments, as you did to CyberGhostface's comment above. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about if the section will be restored or not, I made my point, wikipedia reader are intelligent enought to react and I don't need to make an army of anon user to change this page, I am only using it as a reference for the french version and I am waiting for the result of this discussion to see if I should include this kind of section in the french version.

About the ip adress. I am sorry, I think I got pumped by the statement of Scarian. Let me show my proof: First, I doubt my ip can change within 6 hours. Second if you look at http://whatismyipaddress.com you can see that we are not living in the same country. Third, I still got the same ip adress since I made the first revert, 3-4 days ago. Accusation without proof are easy.

Finally, sorry about ghost comment, I probably hitted something wrong when I typed my answer. Peace. Paldiski (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am making no accusations one way or another, I am simply saying that some people's IP addresses change frequently, whilst other people's do not.

As for this larger issue, unreferenced information should never be added to Wikipedia, period. This "unofficial mytharc" stuff is entirely the product of someone's opinion, and cannot be referenced. That is why it has been removed several times. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And notice how I said "Poss..." [meaning "possibly"]. It just seemed suspicious to me. Apologies I did not mean to get you "pumped". Anyway, if the unofficial mytharc section is stay in you really, really, really need to source it and prove its legality. Otherwise it is just plain editor POV. You can't really use the reason: "It's on the French Wikipedia ergo it should be left in" (That was not a quote, that was just from my brain). Because it's still POV. Please read WP:POV. Scarian^Talk 09:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should make another section or add a line to clarify (and possibly list) that some episodes where characters are introduced, or a minor (bur crucial) plot event happens are NOT included in the "Official Mythology". So as not to confuse those that are trying to learn about the show.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, We can all agree that SOME episodes that are not officially called "Mythology" can/do have important "Mythology" information in them, Right? --72.43.251.52 (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So its pretty much the same thing as before, then. "These episodes aren't part of the mythology but they still are in my view." Some of them I might agree with you. Some I would dispute. (For example, how much of Musings of a CSM really happened and how much was fiction as the entire thing was written by CSM himself? Or the Unnatural, which contradicts previous mythology episodes?) Is any episode dealing with some form of alien life a mytharc episode? The whole thing is open to interpretation.

In the end, its a slippery slope either way, since its just your (or our) view on the situation. If you find an article supporting your statement (like a magazine review) then I guess we could talk.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(I am the same as 72.43.251.52, just on a diff comp) I don't really have an opinion on which ones should be included because I am new to the series, I just know that if I hadn't checked this article when I did (When the "unofficial" section was still there), I would be really confused when it came to characters like Krycek. --74.67.184.174 (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If we were to make a list of all the episodes deemed important by various fans it'd grow long and unwieldy. Should Squeeze be included because it had the first recurring villain? Ghost in the Machine, because Deep Throat (I think) was in it?

Besides, I'm sure Krycek's role is more than expanded on in the other articles here.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The Unofficial Mythology section and it's relevance has been discussed by many people on this site and it has been decided that it is relevant to this site, just not by one person. Elements especially in the Christmas Carol saga are definitely mythology and deserve mention. They are probably not on the DVD because 60 episodes sound a lot cleaner than 68 or whatever the actual count is. I have reverted it back.--Exer 505 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy always outweighs consensus. You can't just decide yourself what counts as mythology and what's not. And your explanation counts as original research. Unless Carter himself says "These count as mythology, and we didn't include them for such and such reasons" then you can't make up excuses as to why its not included.--CyberGhostface 02:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Because we have sharp differences in opinion, and before this gets a little ugly, would anyone else like to state their opinion on the validity of the Unofficial Mythology section?--Exer 505 02:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As CyberGhostface has said, policy outweight consensus every time. I agree with that completely. Though, to be quite frank, I do not believe we are anywhere near a consensus on the issue. A look at this most recent discussion clearly indicates there are a number of people who disagree with the existence of that section. It is entirely OR and a matter of the opinions of those writing it. It is unverifiable and unencyclopaedic. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I posted earlier, but for some reason, I can't find it. If anyone sees a response that seems out of place, it's probably mine :D. Anyway, I agree with the original research part, but with the Christmas Carol saga, which considered MANY mythology elments (like a revelation that Emily is scully's clone with alien DNA and the appearance of the alien bounty hunter), I think that should at least deserve a mention. "Per Manum", an official mythology episode, contained flashbacks to "Christmas Carol" and Emily" also, so....yea......--Exer 505 02:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Exer and think it should be included, but these guys seem pretty steadfast in their defense. Is there any reasonable way we can resolve this?--Corgana 04:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless you find some outside professional source that makes the claim that these specific episodes are part of the Mythology (or at least, should have been) then there's no way you could have an "unofficial" section without violating WP:OR. (Although in your defense, I had an X-Files magazine a while ago that said the Emily two parter was part of the mytharc, so I suppose if you find anything concerning it you could probably add it...although that mytharc guide was extremely contradictory with the current one, as E.B.E. and Fallen Angel among other episodes were absent)

Its like Stephen King's Dark Tower series. He had a specific list of books that were "connected" to his series (like Salem's Lot). If I were to say "Well, I think these books which he didn't mention are part of the DT connected ones" on Wikipedia, that would count as bias and original research on my part because I'm the one deciding that its connected for my own personal reasons.--CyberGhostface 12:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

← Latecomer to this. Just wanted to say I fully support the removal. There's a reason things need to be sourced on Wikipedia -- so that we can be sure the information is accurate. In this case the producers have explicitly told us which episodes they consider to be mythology, and that's the only list that matters. End of story.

Equazcion •✗/C • 22:15, 12/24/2007

• Hey, I'm a new viewer of the X-Files. I've seen some of the non-mytharc episodes, and think they're pretty stupid (ie Brain-eating mutant?), so I'm trying to just watch Mytharc episodes, but within the first season I can already tell I'm missing a ton of stuff that's actually important. Without this section, I have no idea what else to watch. I have a message to CyberGhostFact: Thanks alot, jerk!

Fair use rationale for Image:Toomsx.jpg

Image:Toomsx.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Syndicate008.jpg

Image:Syndicate008.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I just found a recently created article named The X-Files Awards and Nominations. With everybodies permission, I wish to merge it into this article. --Kannie | talk 22:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, you've got my blessing.

Equazcion •✗/C • 22:11, 12/24/2007

I made a table for the newly-merged material under "Awards", but it seems kind of bulky and not terribly GA-worthy. If anyone has idea about what to do with it, or whether all of it is even needed, please feel free to make changes.

Equazcion •✗/C • 23:55, 12/24/2007

Re-merge of history

I've merged the history article back here. It was rotting away cause no one was working on it or paying attention. There was one edit in 3 months. The named refs that were defined in this article were never fixed following the split and betacommand bot was deleting all its media. This is good and interesting material and probably no one was even seeing it. I've re-merged it back here under a new "History" section. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:23, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Msf74.jpg

Image:Msf74.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I took care of this but this fair-use rationale crap is like some kind of annoying foreign language to me, so if someone could please check to see if it's fixed I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:43, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)

A source that can be used Truth Is Out There: The Official Guide to the X Files

There is a book called Truth Is Out There: The Official Guide to the X Files by Brian Lowry. If you need more X-Files information (especially about development of episodes), get the book and cite it. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Equazcion •✗/C • 06:00, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Article layout

The layout and organization of this article make no sense to me. Would it not make more sense to have the "idea and pilot" section come first, followed by the history, and then the cast? I find the chart of characters, with the table of contents running alongside it, very distracting and offputting right at the beginning of the article. And it simply makes more sense to talk about Carter's idea for the show and how said idea developed then to begin with a chart of the characters. The discussion of "types of episodes" should also come later in the article, prefereably after the history. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- the most important cast stuff is already listed in the prose sections, anyway. As it is, it is very clunky and chunky and usability is POOR. --Lquilter (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Also agree on the section order. The right-side wrapped TOC is my doing, which I did because the TOC is just so long that it produced this huge empty space when placed the default way. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:11, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I reordered the sections accordingly, but now the TOC nested right looks odd. I'm not sure which is better, the big empty space or the awkward TOC placement. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:31, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks considerably better, even with the TOC on the right. I think putting it in its "normal" position would be a bad idea, considering the amount of space that would be wasted. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation for longest running sci-fi show

I don't really get it. Why is there a citation needed for the fact that this sci-fi show is not longer the longest running? I mean: clearly you can just count one and one together....

• X-Files: 9 Seasons
• Stargate SG-1: 10 Seasons

If anything IMO a link to the SG-1 article here on Wikipedia should be enough.

Yours fkm:80.218.176.225 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Associated Content?

Whilst reverting an edit a few moments ago, I got a message saying my edit could not be saved because there was a page listed in the article with the URL associatedcontent.com, and that all content from said site was banned. Does anyone know anything about this? For future reference, do not add any references or external links from said site. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly not a reliable source, but I didn't know the wiki actually prevented saving of any particular text. I've never heard of this. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:45, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris Carter's Actual Role as "Creator"

There has been some debate about the actual role of Chris Carter in "creating" the "X-Files." Some say that the Fox Network actually came to him with the idea. There have also been claims that Chris Carter's wife actually came up with it. She certainly at the least was responsible for convincing the Fox Network to hire him. These claims should perhaps at least be discussed.

Also, the show's effect on the history of the Fox Network ought to be discussed. There was another tv show on early in the network's history which was expected to be a "big hit" - However, it bombed. At that point, the network "had the Simpson's and they had nuthin'" - This was before any major sports contracts. So essentially, the show saved The Fox Network. And thereby saved all "branches" of the network such as Fox News...

In addition, the sale of the show to the Sci Fi Channel and TNT should be discussed. It was truly significant - I seem to recall that both networks paid a total of one billion dollars for the rights to broadcast the show. That's a truly significan investment by any standard and it would maybe make it a more interesting article if this aspect of the show's history were discussed. e.g., are the two networks happy with the return on their investments? Have ratings continued to be good? Why do they seem to be "cutting back" on X-Files lately, for example in favor of "Battlestar Galactica?" etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.188.66 (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As to your first point, exactly WHY should it be discussed? Sure, it's an important issue, how much input a given person has into a show widely considered to be "theirs", but it's not something that you can just discuss aimlessly in a Wikipedia article short of any evidence, and it would be more relevant to the Chris Carter article than this one, anyway.

If indeed Carter's wife came up with the idea (did you hide in their pillows or something?), I'm sure she must have consented to have him get the credit for it, since I never heard of a legal battle within their marriage over that, so it sounds like a private issue between them. As for the "creator" designation, I've never heard any argument that Chris Carter wasn't the "creator" of The X-Files. It would require closing your eyes 200 times as you watch each episode, since it says "Created by Chris Carter" right there on the screen. Now, as to what a "creator" in television really means, and whether one person in TV is ever a true auteur that can fairly get the credit for the work of so many people (my personal answer is: "NO" because I think TV is too insanely compromised by commerce to reflect one person's vision, even if you're talking about HBO shows), particularly in the case of one like Carter who freely admitted how much help he needed from others, there's another very arguable and very interesting issue, which may or may not reflect well on Carter, BUT AGAIN, not an issue that fits at all into the topic of this article, short of any hard evidence.

Actually, there is some small evidence for your points. In case you didn't notice, this X-Files article goes to much much greater lengths than usual to point out the varying contributions of the huge number of writers, actors, directors, photographers, makeup and fx and technical artists, crew members, and other producers, even some casting agents and Fox executives, whose work made The X-Files what it was. Probably most people before reading this article had never heard of anyone behind the scenes of The X-Files besides Chris Carter, and now they will have to confront all these new names. Don't you think all this information, as well as being much less biased than the sort of anti-Carter article you're always suggesting, also goes further toward making your own point- that it's unfair for Carter to get the credit as the sole creator of the show, even if all TV shows must have an official "creator"? I have no way of knowing how talented Carter actually is, and I think you don't either. My guess is he is quite talented and not very original, but then I wouldn't say complete originality is the main talent of anyone involved with making The X-files so great, even my favorite writers like Darin Morgan. Pure originality is also overrated and TV has rarely been about that. It's not necessary to say Chris Carter had no talent in order to point out the truth that he didn't "create" X-Files alone- nor does it contradict his role as "creator" to point out that he had help in creating it. "Creator" means that whatever his artistic talents, he had the power to make the idea happen and to get his name first on the credits, no one disputes that. Getting things done is a talent in itself, even if sometimes it means running over other people.

As to your second point, it's a very important issue and I agree that it really should be more discussed in our article. The fact The X-Files was the first major hit on FOX apart from The Simpsons or sports, is extremely important, yet I've tried (months ago) and it's difficult to find sources for this, but if you find them please add them to the article. Perhaps there's some book about the history of the Fox network.. well, I won't be the one to read it!

"Why do they seem to be "cutting back" on X-Files lately" - that might indicate their returns from the reruns on cable haven't been good? I dunno. It seems that issue is very superficial to this article. Why don't you call some people or go out and do some journalism investigating these topics and when you've written good sourced articles on them, if they're relevant, Wikipedia can incorporate the no-longer-original research.

FYI: rename discussion The X-Files (film) --> The X-Files (Fight the Future)

Please join a discussion over on Talk: The X-Files (film) about whether to rename that article to The X-Files (Fight the Future), "Fight the Future" is the first movie's subtitle/working title/nickname. The word "film" in the disambiguation section of the first movie's title seems increasingly incomplete as the release date for the second film The X-Files: I Want to Believe approaches. Convergence Dude (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Making this a featured article in time for the new movie

See Wikipedia:Peer review/The X-Files/archive2 for this article's peer review. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

the series and franchise should have separate articles

There should be two articles, The X-Files (TV series) and The X-Files (franchise), because alot of this article is about the franchise. And there are alot of X-Files articles, so a franchise article is appropriate. 70.55.88.176 (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "franchise," though? Only a small amount of this article is about the X-Files movies and links with other series, or even about the fans. That info could be removed somewhere else if you find a better place, but it wouldn't make the article much shorter. Most of the info is about the production process, plot and public reception of the original X-Files TV show. The way to split that info off would be to make season articles, not a "franchise" article. 172.130.0.70 (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know there are also X-files novels, books etc. A franchise article covering the series, movies and all other media as well as the general reception issues in fair length might be a good idea; but it would require not a simple separation, but the creation of a new article and the necessary editing of this one. Evren Güldoğan (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial mytharc episodes

For the recent rash of unofficial mythology listings, you should know that we used to have such a listing in this article, but it was decided, after several problems and much extensive discussion, that it be removed. See Talk:The X-Files/Archive 5#About the unofficial mytharc section for the last discussion that resulted in the final removal. At the very least, such a list constitutes original research. And at the most, it provides a section that changes rather frequently when people fight over which episodes should and shouldn't be considered part of the mytharc. Every fan has their own opinion on this, so the section doesn't lend itself to article stability. Again, it's original research anyway, and therefore doesn't belong. Thanks for your understanding. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Who decides what makes a mythology episode if not the creators themselves? What makes us experts on the matter?--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, for me the issue was not quite that simple, it was more that the particular set of DVDs issued long after the show ended didn't seem to be the last word on the matter, even from the creators, since it is never certain who decides what goes on those DVDs, and what was included on it sometimes contradicted their past interviews about whether x episode was "mythology" or not. Yes, it's true rabid fans may have memories and feelings for certain episodes, but if it was just fans vs creators, that's obviously an easy issue, and we side with creators in defining the categories they invented for their own work. However in this case even the creators may not be sure what is "canon" or "mythology" at any given moment- this was always subject to change over the years due to the nature of the series and it's easy to forget that unlike Lost, etc., which it inspired, The X-Files was a bit less self-conscious in defining its own mythology at first. This wasn't a show with deluxe DVD packages that came out less than a year from when it first came on TV, remember- this mythology DVD appeared 12 years after its debut, and a full three years after it had gone off the air. In a way you can say that gives it more validity, but in another sense TV is known as a very instant medium, so the way a show is perceived at the time it's first on is equally important to later DVD collections, and I think that could explain the reason some wanted to put in "unofficial mythology episodes."

Remember that in the heat of the show's (or any show's) popularity plenty of episodes were advertised as being somehow special and fundamental to the future plot of the show, and perhaps were not actually that important, whether good or not. Other episodes may have been clearly planned by the creators to be of huge later importance, but didn't go over well with audiences and left nothing solid to build on, so the creators had to rewrite X-Files history a bit in the years since and pretend this "mythology" didn't happen (Christmas Carol/Emily are the easy example of this- there is tons of evidence that those were considered "mythology" by everyone from creators to viewers at the time they first aired). And then there are the simple space issues of what will fit on a few DVDs as opposed to every episode that actually did have "mythology" relevance even in the creators' eyes. So it's a bit more complicated.

I think the problem is completely solved though, so long as the article doesn't even attempt to address what is ACTUALLY "mythology" or not, which is a stupid and unavoidably subjective sort of debate even among fans (again due to the intentionally ambiguous nature of this show) and of course has no place in Wikipedia. All we need to do for a basic overview of mythology is to explain the type of episodes that are generally covered by that (done) and mention what is contained in the DVDs and designated there as mythology (done), without particularly having to say that it IS the last word on the "mythology," whatever such a last word on such a topic would even mean. I think some fans really take what did or didn't happen much too seriously. For me the idea that there could be some hierarchy with some episodes just plain true and others not is against whatever philosophy is to be found in The X-Files in the first place- at the same time, it ALL happened and NONE of it happened, so I'll let others define what's mythology or not, if they really think that's what X-Files is about. 172.130.0.70 (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the DVDs aren't the first to my knowledge to decide what's mythology. The official X-Files magazines (man do I miss those), for example, had a number of "mythology guides". If anything, the DVDs added more: The episode guide on the magazine (when the first movie came out) only had Pilot, Deep Throat and Erlenmeyer Flask as Mythology for the first season, for example. So it is a subjective matter, I agree.

In the end, I think all that an episode needs to be considered mythology is an official confirmation by the creators. But listing episodes that "some fans{{''citation needed''}} consider to be mythology", which was what I initially had issue with with, should be avoided.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be included, but each episode should have a note including the REASON it's listed. It could be a good reference source for people who want to see what's missing on the mytharc collection, but don't want to sit through pointless episodes. For example, a certain episode could have "(introduces such and such a character)" beside it. Mustex

Ok, I added a section on non-mytharc episodes that introduced important mythology characters. I figured that should be a good compromise here.Mustex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.210.140 (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

History Section

Could it be split into Story Synopsis and Production history. I'm quite interested in finding out about the development of the mythology, but the history section mixes this with information about awards, ratings and other tidbits, which I'm sure many people would find in interesting but makes for difficult reading. Ajmayhew (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

new ideas available to interpret and document the series and real events...

right topic?! another starting point

The descriptive nature of the article is wonderful. For all, who are more interested in the theme of the x-file and are in the mood of inspector investigate, i recommend content around the title of this video. the soundtrack is german. maybe there is more american language translation for unexplainable events in the us and around the world. trust no one is out, youtube is in- browse before "killer tomatoes" are flaged at youtube.com...--84.157.244.34 (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the article

Anyone against creating separate articles for each season, with only a single paragraph for each on this article? Like they did with Lost_(TV_series)#Season_synopses.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

sounds good to me, yamanbaiia. providing that it would be less biased against the last years of the show than the article currently is. it's really dismissive and lazy that the article has an individual section for season 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 but one section for "seasons 7-9"... it's bias —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nesiac (talk • contribs) 05:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Number of episodes: 201 VS 202

i've changed the number of episodes from 202 to the correct 201. the BBC reference may say 202 but this is incorrect. the number 202 is based on the incorrect notion that "The Truth" constitutes two episodes. it is a two part episode. it was aired with no gap between the parts, the DVD lists it as a single episode, the wiki article for the list of episodes lists it as episode 201. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.49.147 (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris Carter has stated that there were 202 episodes of The X-Files. Let me see if I can find the video online. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 05:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

be sure that you do. although the fact is i could give you a list of the 201 episodes and you could not name an episode im missing. just go to the list of episodes page please, it lists the episode numbers of course. keep scrolling down and it will end with episode 201: The Truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nesiac (talk • contribs) 16:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

well whatya know, since i last checked the list of eps page has changed The Truth to the clunky looking "episodes 19 & 20" of season 9. how convenient —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nesiac (talk • contribs) 16:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's really stupid when you believe that I changed that because I think I'm right or something. I haven't edited that page in God knows how long. I'd really appreciate it if you would stop being so damn rude - it's making me think you're really immature. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 16:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the number of episodes is that it seems not even Fox knows how many there are. The original ninth season box set says "19 episodes". The repackaged one says "20 episodes" while the ultimate collection says "201 episodes, including the double-length series finale". I say go with the latest release, which is the ultimate collection, because that's also how it was aired. Davhorn (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

amen Davhorn, amen Nesiac (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Misc. errors

the article says "(duchovny) returning for several dramatic episodes, and flashbacks were seen in the ninth." well no he wasn't in any flashbacks in the ninth season. only thing i can think of is his split second appearance as a hallucination in spenders eye in "William". which i wouldnt call a flashback. and even if you do, that's the only one. 'flashbacks' is plural. i cant figure out how to rewrite this part. though i did rewrite the part about his involvement in season 8 because it seemed to give the impression that he only made a few small guest appearances, when in fact he stars in the majority of season eight's episodes. Nesiac (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Crime drama?

Help me out here, I could have sworn reading in an X Files book that at one point One format of the X files is "crime drama".

You've got these formats listed (which are all good by the way): Science fiction, Drama, Thriller, Horror, Mystery

However I added in "crime"....but someone edited it out.

Anyone think that should be added in again?

i dont. they're not investigating crimes most of the time. and when they do, thats not primarily why they're investigating the case. its a show about paranormal activity not criminal activity 124.187.72.158 (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah i see. I just could've sworn that one time I read that the x files was a bit of crime drama too. lol.

oh well, that's sorted then XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamaluigibob (talk • contribs) 12:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well some of the episodes do focus more on criminal activity and one or two of the episodes could have been on CSI without a problem. Hell Money did not even have anything supernatural to it.