Talk:The X-Files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article The X-Files has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject The X-Files (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject The X-Files, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The X-Files franchise on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Television (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States / American Television (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American television (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Canada / British Columbia / Vancouver / TV Show (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Vancouver (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian TV shows.
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.


Is Millenium really a spin-off of The X-Files?[edit]

I made an edit to this article which had said that Millenium was a spin-off of The X-Files to saying that The X-Files had a crossover with it. I explained in the Millenium article why Millenium is not really an X-Files spin-off.

The Millenium article (which I corrected) mistakenly said that Millenium had been developed as an X-Files spin-off. Chris Carter came up with Millenium when FOX asked him for another show and I don't think FOX actually said that it had to be a spin-off of The X-Files.

From what I read Millenium was developed on its own and Millenium is not an X-Files spin-off because none of its characters nor storyline originated on The X-Files. --The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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"[edit]

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 (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.

X files userbox[edit]

Since nobody has yet made an X-files userbox, at least that I can find, I made one myself. If anyone wants it copy and paste this.

X This user believes that the truth is right in front of you. It's all in the X-files

Shreder 02 (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. There is one though:

{{User:EVula/Userboxes/X-Files}} --

Equazcion /C 16:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Both are good. I'd just change the text color on the first one so its easier to read.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That was actually my first userbox.Shreder 02 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: My userbox is now in the gallery under science fiction Shreder 02 (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :D. I'm gonna make some of my own with these if it's OK/-Taeyebaar (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

UserboxXFiles.png This user is a fan of The X-Files
The truth is out there

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

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)

the series and franchise should have separate articles[edit]

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. (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. (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[edit]

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. (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 (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Making this a featured article in time for the new movie[edit]

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

The X Files vs. The X-Files[edit]

Incredibly, if you look at the images used in the articles for the TV series and both movies ([1], [2], [3]), a hyphen has never been a part of the title of the franchise. Despite this, the use of the hyphen by nearly all media and discussion of the franchise might give it a WP:common_name arguement, despite the fact that it is actually inaccurate. Or does it? What do we do when the truth butts heads with the common name convention? -- AvatarMN (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree with you, I have long wondered where this hyphen came from. It's possible that "The X-Files" was used on press releases and other material sent out by the creators, and that they have made a stylistic choice not to include it in the logos used on the series, films and other spinoffs like the novels, comic book and The Secrets of The X Files. I personally prefer to not use the hyphen but this is an opinion that's very much in the minority. Speednik (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The hyphen doesn't make sense. The 'X' isn't a prefix of 'Files'. These files are filed under 'X'. If the show was called The Enigma Files, or something, there'd be no hyphen confusion. The title of the article should be changed. Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

in the end credits of the first x files movie, it is in fact hyphenated —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  • This comment is correct - screengrab of end credits. See also this example from a little earlier in the film. I'm of the opinion that while I personally am not a fan of the hyphen in the title, it's almost universally recognised as being part of it even by those who made it. Like it or not, the hyphen on the article title should remain. Speednik (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"the hyphen on the article title should remain"? No, it should not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Away with the hyphen, says I. This coming from a diehard for absolute accuracy when it comes to titles, to the point where I consider misspelt song names 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth', and thus not bound by WP's conventions. The main series states "The X Files", right? Then that's what it should be. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

History Section[edit]

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...[edit]

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 (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the article[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 05:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Number of episodes: 201 VS 202[edit]

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 (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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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?[edit]

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 (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 (talkcontribs) 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.

Laura Palmer's photo?[edit]

I was wondering about the sentence in influences where it says: In the pilot, Mulder is seen sitting at his desk, and among the clutter, a framed copy of the Laura Palmer "prom-queen" photo is seen. ^THAT^

I've cued back and forth and freeze framed, etc I can't see it. Then as I was about to come on here to say this I see that: [citation needed] Has been added to the sentence. So IS IT REALLY THERE? I think if that's the case then being that it's so hard to find whoever added that should upload a screenshot with it circled or something. Or if anyone can tell me where it is there at all that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Your question intrigued me as I'd never heard of this before. After some Google searching I've come to suspect that this info was added by someone who saw it at this page, which claims the same thing in similar words. I haven't gone frame-by-frame through the episode, but the link above seems to be, literally, the only site on the internet to make this claim, (aside from Wikipedia), so I have a feeling it is erroneous information.
However I did come across something similar in my search, which may have led to the confusion. The page for Squeeze, another first-season episode, has the following trivia posted: "If you look closely you can see a picture of the corpse of Laura Palmer from Twin Peaks in the scene where Mulder shows Scully the elongated fingerprints from the previous murder scenes. You can see it hanging behind Scully's head when she backs away in her chair and stands up. David Duchovny played a small part in this series as DEA Agent Dennis Bryson".
Haven't looked for this yet in the episode itself, but if you do, let us know if it's there. :) Equazcion /C 20:59, 15 Nov 2008 (UTC)
I just watched the video on Google, and I cannot see any picture of Laura Palmer. Granted, the video is rather small, and I might be able to make out greater detail on a large-screen tv, but there are a lot of pictures on the bulletin board in this scene, and none of them look at all like Laura Palmer. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I tried a downloaded version. I can see the photo that's being referred to. It's got a greenish hue and shows a woman's body, but we don't get a good enough look to see much more than that. It could be Laura Palmer, but it could just as easily be someone random. And just for kicks I took a look through the more famous photos of Laura Palmer's body on Google, and none of them match. Equazcion /C 14:25, 16 Nov 2008 (UTC)
All of this seems to add up to not much. But, I would argue that the claim should be removed from the article until some rock-solid evidence is found. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The X-Files and R. W. Goodwin[edit]

I was wondering why R. W. Goodwin gets little to no mention in X-Files related wiki pages? Could have sworn I read something saying that he directed the first and last episodes of each season while he was a part of the show, yet he doesn't even have an article.

Han Hobo (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, R.W. Goodwin is mentioned by name at least three times in the text of THIS article, including a quote to his name about the challenges of producing XF episodes, and specific mentions of several well known episodes he directed. I'm not sure that his public contributions to television, or other art forms in general are numerous enough to justify having his own article. Usually if someone is known primarily for doing one thing only and there is little to say about them independent of covering that subject, in this case The X-Files, there is no need for a separate article.
Also, just to clarify, though I used to think Goodwin had directed the opening and closing episodes of each year (minus the Pilot and plus One Breath midway in season 2) for the first five seasons, it turns out Goodwin didnt do the first episode in season two, Little Green Men, which was directed by David Nutter. Goodwin's actual credits according to IMDb are: Erlenmeyer Flask (season 1); One Breath and Anasazi (season 2); The Blessing Way and Talitha Cumi (season 3); Herrenvolk and Gethsemane (season 4); and Redux [part I] and The End (season 5). In addition, Goodwin wrote, but did not direct, season 4's Demons ep. (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters[edit]

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How Can X-Files and Millennium Be in the Same Universe?[edit]

I know there was a crossover episode between The X-Files and Millennium that served as a kind of resolution to Millennium's story but wasn't there another episode of Millennium that showed The X-Files as a TV show? It was called 'Somehow Satan Got Behind Me'. It showed them filming The X-Files in a studio, although they didn't have the actual actors from The X-Files. (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Was it actually called The X-Files or was it just some spoof? I mean, I know it was a reference to show obviously, but in the continuity of the episode itself?--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
They did not call it The X-Files. I haven't actually seen the episode but from what I read in a transcript, it involved two people who looked a lot like Mulder and Scully in an alien autopsy scene getting attacked by aliens with machine guns. The theme music resembled X-Files theme music but wasn't quite the same. (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, there was also an episode of The X-Files where a case they've worked one was being made into a movie. Maybe what you saw in Millennium was a part of that? :) Davhorn (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I have watched every episode of both shows. Turns out that in an episode of The X-Files, Millennium's main character, Frank Black, has a major part in it. So yes, they are in the same universe. --Mrninja13 (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Homicide: Life on the Streets[edit]

Millennium is considered to be part of the same universe as The X-Files because there was an X-Files episode that featured Frank Black and there was a Millennium episode that featured Jose Chung. However, there was also an X-Files episode that featured John Munch, who is the main character in the shows Homicide: Life on the Street and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. This was not a brief cameo. He appeared in more than one scene and had many lines. Does that mean those shows are also part of the same universe as The X-Files? If so, should we list them as related shows? Does a single crossover mean that two shows are part of the same universe? (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't the article contain some information about criticism of The X-Files? For example, Dawkins' views:

The X-Files is a television series in which, every week, two FBI agents face a mystery. One of the two, Scully, favours a rational, scientific explanation; the other agent, Mulder, goes for an explanation which either is supernatural or, at very least, glorifies the inexplicable. The problem with The X-Files is that routinely, relentlessly, the supernatural explanation, or at least the Mulder end of the spectrum, usually turns out to be the answer. [...] But The X-Files systematically purveys an anti-rational view of the world which, by virtue of its recurrent persistence, is insidious.

Richard DawkinsUnweaving the Rainbow

utcursch | talk 15:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Ah, good old Richard "cameo role in one of the most scientifically nonsensical episodes of Doctor Who ever filmed" Dawkins, having a pop at The X Files. Speednik (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

And why do you consider the sentence you quoted a judgmental view?

--Fiertel91 (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Major changes to the article (and why they were reverted)[edit]

I've restored the version of the article prior to the major changes posted a few minutes ago. I don't like to do this, because of the effort involved, but (despite some improvements in certain areas) overall the changes need a fair deal of discussion as there are some serious issues that need addressing and resolving first. There are issues with the writing style, organization (especially the lead), and other aspects that warrant the revert. The previous version is stronger at this point and as such should stand for now. I'll do a more detailed review tomorrow (given the hour here) and again kudos for the effort, but it needs proofreading and discussion. --Ckatzchatspy 10:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That may be right, but my version is better then this in many other ways. Most important its referenced --TIAYN (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
What did you guys decide? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yearly teview of the X-Files[edit]

This may well not be the the correct place for this as I am a Wikipedia user only and not a writer. I am just finishing my fourth time through the X-Files and I have been using this reference a great deal.

I was extremely disappointed when I looked last night to find that the year by year commentary had been removed during this rewrite. It gave a lot of focus to the run years of the series. I would encourage the new contributers to either include this once again as was or to rewrite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

See The X-Files (season 1), The X-Files (season 2), The X-Files (season 3), The X-Files (season 4), The X-Files (season 5), The X-Files (season 6), The X-Files (season 7), The X-Files (season 8), The X-Files (season 9). Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviations + picture size[edit]

Firstly I don't think mentioning "x-files" as an alternative name is really necessary, as every TV or movie title with "the" is often referred to without it. And is there some good ref that refers to The X-Files as "TXF"?

As far as the picture, the image is 230 pixels. Is there really a need to enlarge it and compromise quality? Equazcion (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


I tagged the article for needing general copy-editing; any help would be appreciated. Hardtofindaname 09:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

References to the eighth season[edit]

Is there any reason why the eighth season seems to be mentioned the most in the article? Just wondering, because perhaps we could even out the coverage? Hardtofindaname 10:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

All the production information are about the first seven seasons, reception and syndication info are easier to find for the newer episodes. If you want to add more information about them... get the information --TIAYN (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, should have been more specific. I was referring to the second paragraph of the "themes and allusion" section and the bit about eighth season ratings under "international syndication". Perhaps that should be moved to the season eight page? It's just a suggestion; I do plan to go look out for more info about the other seasons but I thought I'd bring it up to get some info on the history behind the decision to be more specific for that particular season. Thanks for your response. Hardtofindaname 23:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythology of The X-Files[edit]

Didn't we once have a separate article on the Mythology of The X-Files? Now it seems to be a redirect to this article (yet this article contains links to it). A little confused. Nevertheless, there should probably be a separate mythology article to explain this very vast story. Equazcion (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I created that redirect. We are going to create the Mythology one time, but its a big project. So it might take a while before any one actually does it. --TIAYN (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Until then the links should be removed from this article, being redirects right back here, agreed? Equazcion (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay with me. --TIAYN (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I think I changed my mind :) I might be starting that article today so I'm gonna leave the links in for now. Equazcion (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythology article[edit]

TIAYN and I have begun work on the article Mythology of The X-Files. This is an effort to describe the complex X-Files story arc and tie together all the various articles that describe it. My personal goal is to present the story in a way that's easy to understand even for non-fans of the show, as it's pretty complicated. If you feel you can contribute please check out the article. We could use the help. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why Is This Show NOT Considered Film Noir?[edit]

I have tried twice now to add "Film Noir" to the list of Formats or "Sub genres" that make up The X-Files, but each time, it has been removed. I think it is quite obvious to anyone who has watched the show that there is a clear Film Noir influence on the show as well as the fact that the concept, the storyline of numerous episodes, and even the show's cinematography all have Film Noir aspects.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maestrodagod (talkcontribs) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It totally does - have Film Noir aspects that is. It's a dark show. I think anyone who's seen it can get on board, in that respect. But it isn't Film Noir per se. I mean, it's not a black-and-white, big-city detective show narrarted by Robert Stack. But in a more serious sense, "Film Noir" is not a clearly defined phrase, but one that generally refers to crime dramas from the 1940s and '50s, characterized by hardboiled detective fiction and usually presented in the form of melodramas. What exactly "Film Noir" means is a subject of no small scholarly debate, but you've got to admit that as a series, The X-Files meets none of those criteria. Don't give up though, if it means something to you - there's a strong argument to be made for the assertion that the one was influenced by the other. Stagyar Zil Doggo (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Starting in season eight, with the addition of Agent John Doggett, the series seems to have definitely taken on more of the characteristics I personally associate with "Film Noir" than it did much earlier in the series.. Mulder did the sci-fi aspect perfectly, but his character is in no way compatible with how I'd think a detective in "Film Noir" acts - Doggett on the other hand, is a classic "Film Noir" detective personality. But overall, I would still say that the X-Files falls outside of the genre of Film Noir, even in season 8. (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Burning show?[edit]

A better word is needed under International syndication in the sentence "...viewers felt the show was burning." I believe it is a reference to program quality having dropped in the eyes of viewers, but I don't know what the proper replacement word would be. 'burning' isn't the right word there.-Neptunerover (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I changed it to the longer description of viewers' feelings, for lack of a better single word.-Neptunerover (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Also starring[edit]

Hey, I've just recently started watching the fourth season, and it billed William B. Davis as "also starring". Now, I know that the infobox right now only has the actors in the opening credits listed, but most other shows (like the US Office, Freaks and Geeks, and House) have the actors who are billed as "also starring" in the infobox as well. Therefore, I submit that William B. Davis and anyone else who is billed as also starring to be in the inforbox as well. (please don't spoil anything for me!!!) (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Since no one responded, I'm just gonna put William B. Davis in the infobox. I don't know who else should be there given I have only recently begun season 4. (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Infoboxes only list actors with main roles, which (as far as I recall) Davis never had. "Also starring" can refer to recurring roles. --Ckatzchatspy 09:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, thats true, but I felt a discussion should be made, because it is a different and special billing, one that may or may not be important enough to be in the infobox. Part of my problem is that I don't have much of an argument because I haven't seen enough of the series. One option is making an "also starring" catagory, if thats even necessary. (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


I'm actually with Jimchan9 on this, though they should've discussed the issue rather than edit warred over it. Also would've been nice if Ckatz would've done the same, or at least provided some rationale in the edit summary beyond "long-standing convention". I'm not quite sure what that means -- that the article has been this way a while? Anyway, as far as I know, much of the filming having taken place in Canada isn't reason to call a show or film Canadian. It was made by an American network for an American market, as Jimchan9 points out, and I haven't seen any better argument put forth otherwise. Equazcion (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, it would be nice if Jim would actually discuss this rather than reverting his preference in. If the decision here leads to such a change, so be it - but as the current version has stood for quite some time it is appropriate to complete the discussion first. --Ckatzchatspy 01:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree completely with that. If you have no argument for why it should be the way it's been for a while, then it should change. It having been this way up until now isn't any argument in itself, and if there's no counter-argument, then no discussion need take place. The change can happen until someone does come along with something to say. I'm making the edit again. If anyone comes up with any actual rationale it can always be changed back. Equazcion (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The argument is simple. It's a series developed by American media company, for the US market. The stories involved with are almost completely within US border. The only thing that has anything to do with Canada is for cost control in the early part of the series. Eventually the network caved in to the demands of Duchovny and Anderson, moved the production to LA. I have presented a brief explanation before. If this series is to call "Canadian series" then we need to start calling The Lord Of The Rings trilogy "New Zealand series" because they were mostly shot in New Zealand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimchan9 (talkcontribs) 02:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
no it's not that simple. the outer limits was produced in Canada by mostly Canadian companies and it is called an American tv series. the rights to CSI were half or majority owned by a Canadian company and it is not called anything Canadian. All those shows should do the same thing stargate atlantis and sg1 did call it a Canadian American tv show. the series failed partly due to moving out of Canada, the country should be mentioned in the introduction as being important to its success.Grmike (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)grmike
Gee, someone is bitter. I don't understand, were we talking about the outer limit? Now that you mentioned it, so we should use those as precedence, correct? Excuse me, if you are a true fan then you SHOULD know the series was cancelled due to the fact that Duchovny decided to move on, not because it moved out of Canada. In fact season six is the best season ever, right after production was moved back to the United States. "Early in the sixth season, the producers took advantage of the new location, setting the show in parts of the country they had not been able to write episodes in previously". You didn't read that one, did you? Stop having these inferiority complex and move on already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimchan9 (talkcontribs) 16:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Harsh Realm[edit]

Why do people oppose the inclusion of Harsh Realm in the mention of shows that X-Files helped launch for Carter? If you mention Millennium, then why not mention Harsh Realm? Harsh Realm was a worse show than Millennium in terms of ratings, so there is a stronger case that X-Files helped launch Harsh Realm than Millennium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

1) WP:PROVEIT and 2) so what? that has nothing to do with the topic of this article, X-Files. Active Banana ( bananaphone 22:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, I am OK with removing Millennium. My point was only that IF Millennium were to be included, then Harsh Realm should be included as well. (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

X-Files Expo[edit]

Where should we mention the X-Files Expos? As you can see from this reference <>, it was an official X-Files convention for fans held at 10 major U.S. cities in 1998. I think it fits in perfectly in the opening section, where it states: "The show's popularity peaked in the mid-to-late 1990s, leading to the 1998 film, The X-Files." Obviously the popularity also led to the X-Files Expos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I would place it The_X-Files#Fandom. We dont try to "prove statements" that our sources make. Active Banana ( bananaphone 01:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
And the claim of "popularity peaking in the mid to late 90's" is actually not from a source at all and so has been removed. Active Banana ( bananaphone 02:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Millennium as spin-off[edit]

Millennium was misidentified in the lede as a spin-off of The X-Files, which is inaccurate. The two shows were in the same fictional universe, and had cross-overs, but none of the characters or storylines on Millennium originated in The X-Files. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Broadcast vs. Cable[edit]

I recently edited the x files page removing references to StargateSG1. I did this thinking this was a no-brainer, sorry. I removed these references in the opening paragraph and the "Nielsen ratings" section. The reason I feel these should be removed is because neither Stargate SG1 nor Dr. Who (which is the subject of the citation article for the "Nielson ratings" segment)are US Broadcast television shows. The article itself does not claim this, saying simply that SG1 was the "longest running Science fiction show." SG1 was only aired on the Showtime and the SciFi Channel, neither of which are broadcast channels. Maybe this objection nitpicky, but as it is, this reference just seems lazy. I won't make any further changes until I get some consensus on this, however. Blueharvestfan (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Influenced by 1967-68 ABC-TV series "The Invaders" ?[edit]

Although not listed as an influence or inspiration by its creator Chris Carter, it seems obvious to me that X-Files was derivative from the earlier series. Besides the common main themes of alien invasion and conspiracy, note that Roy Thinnes guest-starred 3 times in the X-Files and, (much like Fox Mulder after him )David Vincent "travels from place to place, trying to foil the aliens' plots and warn..." skeptics...etc. Hiroll (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

UFO Photo in Opening title sequence[edit]

I've been trying to find some background in regards to the UFO photo seen at the very beginning of the opening title sequence. I browsed through a list of UFO sightings and didn't really come up with anything, even though I didn't check into every link and I didn't click on every source. I'm wondering if the UFO photo at the beginning is an actual UFO sighting or if it was just made strictly for the show's sequence. If anyone could shed some light on this, that'd be great. Thanks! Geeky Randy (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The X-Files/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemonade51 (talk · contribs) 17:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I shall be working my way through the article and adding any queries where I see fit, most likely in a random order. Feel free to make corrections, or correct me as I go along. As this is voluminous, I suggest you notify the major contributors of the scope, to double check sources and make corrections if you cannot (though this will might be on their respective watchlists). Lemonade51 (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Note to nominator: Do not cross out comments yourself, it's up to the reviewer(s) to be the judge of whether corrections have been made and it distorts whether I (or any one else reviewing) have checked something or not. Just reply below individual bullet points.


  • The article does not comply with WP:LEAD. As a generalised point, the lead should act as summary for the entire article. If done successfully, it will draw the reader into wanting to read the rest – that I cannot say about this. For one, there is nothing about the conception of the show, which is in the main body and themes are hard to construe. See The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. as an example of a ideal lead.


  • No problems with the use of sources.
  • No dab links, nor dead for that matter.
  • One image is up for deletion.
  • The title image could do with a better rationale, just in case it may get deleted.
  • Citation tag needs addressing
  • Seen plenty of overlinks of Fox Mulder's name. I'd imagine it's the same for Scully; remove and it's fine to use their last names thereafter.

Series overview

  • This is discombobulated; while most sentences are clear and concise, there is no evident structure. WP:WEIGHT has to be addressed – why is the third paragraph just a sentence? It seems to me the last three paragraphs have been added on by various editors at different stages. Compare that to the first two, which is how it should have been indited.
  • Grouping the sentences is lazy, and is not what I was looking for. You need to expand on each point, specifically the last sentence. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Is 'long experience' the same as childhood?
  • 'by' is redundant in "She is initially assigned to the X-Files to debunk Mulder's theories by supplying logical..."
  • Cigarette-Smoking Man is all hyphenated and must be corrected throughout the article.

Cast and characters

  • The table needs to comply with MOS:DTT, specifically rowscopes need to be added in the first column.
  • task force is not an hyphenated word
  • Starting the sentence with "The Smoking Man" in his description is repetitive, perfectly fine to substitute it with 'He'.


Backstory checks out, from this article I've obtained off the Guardian archive. You may want to use it if you feel it has any use. (published on June 26, 1998, p. 34)
  • Conception: "as the producers hadn't understood its idea", avoid contractions → had not
  • Conception: "For that he met with a scientist from Yale", place comma between 'For' and 'that'
  • Conception: Should "3 percent of all Americans" be "Three percent of all Americans"
  • Conception: What is the relevance of "Actor Darren McGavin, who played Carl Kolchak in Kolchak: The Night Stalker, appeared in two episodes of The X-Files as Agent Arthur Dales." being in its current position?
  • Conception: "The early 1990s cult hit Twin Peaks is seen as a major influence on the show's dark atmosphere and its often surreal blend of drama and irony." is questionable and needs a ref.
  • Conception: Departure of David Duchovny needs citations
  • Conception: End of Series and I Want to Believe should be added under that section
  • Music: "Chris Carter didn't know whom to ask." did not
  • Music: Citations needed for first three sentences
  • Does 'Departure of David Duchovny' deserve it's own section? If so, why is it only the briefest of sections. It can do with expansion, prefably going in depth for his reasons for leaving the show, what did the press think about it.


  • Home video release needs citations
  • nonconsecutive does not need a hyphen
  • ""Within," the season 8's first episode" surely it should be eighth season or season eight going by consistency.
  • Why does season eight's rank have two references?


  • Critical response: Is this really a critical reception, or just what journalists thought of the first few episodes—jump—and the last season.
  • Legacy: "The show is parodied in The Simpsons season eight episode "The Springfield Files," which aired on January 12, 1997, during The X-Files' peak in popularity" bit in bold redundant I feel and can be removed.
  • Legacy: "Mulder and Scully (voiced by David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson)", WP:MOS states if you mention a full name, it is acceptable to use his last name thereafter.
  • Legacy: "Welsh music act Catatonia released the 1996 single "Mulder and Scully"," 1998 even. "huge hit in the UK" → "huge hit in the United Kingdom"


  • What's the work for Ref 2?
  • Is Ref 4 reliable?
  • Ref 7 is The Times, not Time. That and Ref 104 need a (subscription required) template given the newspaper website have gone paywall
  • Work for Ref 12 missing
  • Is it acceptable to use a YouTube video as a reference (Ref 13), going by WP:YT?
  • Author missing on Ref 31
  • Why does Ref 59 have a different date format to the rest? The Washington Post should be italicized.
  • Ref 66's author is not BBC, should be removed
  • Why is Ref 79 and 92's location formats different, despite having the same publication?
  • Ref 93 was published on October 10 2002. Remove The Age, it was first published on The New York Times
  • Ref 84 was published on September 9, 1993
  • PopMatters a reliable source?
  • No author on Ref 85
  • Ref 97 formatted incorrectly
  • Ref 118 published on BBC News and is the work, BBC therefore becomes the publisher
  • Ref 123 published on, not The Guardian
  • Book citations are inconsistent

I added some things in there, as this article really still needs some work before it is promoted. I'll try to fix what I can.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Provided changes are made during the time this is placed on hold, then I would be happy to pass this. But, as I've said before, this is a very premature nomination. Considerable work is needed; I don't recall TBrandley notifying the major contributors before nominating, especially for a big article like this. I'm reviewing this with a WP:FAC in mind, because I'd imagine along with WP:PR, that's the next step. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Those are the only outstanding issues I could find, for now. On hold for a week. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it's been more than a week, and although I gave the nominator until Sunday to make changes, it does not look like anything will be done going by track record. I am failing the article. GAC isn't the same as WP:PR; do not nominate something if you are not going to get it done and haven't contributed to it at all. – Lemonade51 (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


Per request, edited this. Feedback encouraged! Comments:

  • The "story arc" is referred to repeatedly, but never summarized. It's not what the show is "about" (aliens and conspiracy") but how the show evolves. Likewise, the "mythology" is never covered. Separate sections?
  • Patched instead of fixed the "npr" ref that gave an error when properly cited. Not too noticeable.
  • Switched to sfn from the [[#xxx|xxx..]] It's less hacky and looks great.

Cheers: Lfstevens (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The X-Files/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 11:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be the reviewer for this one. It might take a couple of days to get all the points listed as well... this is the big one for the X Files WikiProject, isn't it? I'm quite thankful that Star Trek is already a GA, but I'm sure this must have been quite daunting to work on as I feel the same way about working up Star Trek: The Next Generation. I'll have a look to see if there are some similar articles at GA that I can compare it to and then start posting points here. Miyagawa (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyviolation report is clean. Miyagawa (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll have to leave this till the weekend to properly review. Miyagawa (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  • All references check out for reliability, and also the formatting is great. I can't fault them at all.
  • You might want to run it through a duplicate link check, my checker finds six duplicated links.
  • Mythology: "using a sentient virus, known as the black oil" - should it just be "black oil" rather than "the black oil"?
  • Opening sequence: The Emmy Award, was it the show's first Emmy Award, or the first for the intro sequence (as in, it won multiple Emmys for this)? Because at the moment I'm reading it as the latter, but I think it should be the former.

Well. I have to be honest, I was expecting to have more issues with this (not because of your work, but because of of the size of the article) but it is a really good article. 99.9% of the prose is excellent, and I don't think you'd have a great deal of trouble taking this further onto FA. This is a good model of what to expect in a television series main article for a show that ran that long. Miyagawa (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the issues you have mentioned above. I also added a new section about spin-offs/comic books, since that is big in the news right now (I use the term "big" in kind of a loose way).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Well I am pleased to say that in my opinion this now meets the Good Article requirements, and I honestly think that if I get any of the Star Trek series articles to a state of half as good as this, then I'd be quite proud of myself. Very nicely done. The prose really is very engaging. Miyagawa (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


I wanted to start a discussion before simply deleting it, but I'm against the addition of the fantasy genre to this article. The X-Files, by and large, has always been classified as science fiction, I've never seen it labeled as fantasy. The existence of one article on the Internet (Google "The X-Files fantasy", there's no other sources), that barely even argues or says outright that "The X-Files is fantasy" within the article, doesn't automatically get to define this show as "fantasy". Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I kind of with you on this. I was also frustrated that the editor who added it just used a bare url. I think the article is arguing that it's more of a science fiction series than a science series, though, so I don't really think it's that notable.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree. This is classic sci-fi territory here. Where's the fantasy? And as you have both indicated, the source is not great. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I boldly removed it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Going to admit that probably some episodes deal with more fantastic things (not an expert on this show) but when you are summarizing the entire series, it's generally dealing with science fiction themes. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree. When you mention it, most people will think of "aliens", and not "angels" (which the show did touch upon).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The show is generally pretty episodic and deals with different genres on an episode by episode basis, but the supernatural plays a heavy part in most episodes making it about a 40/60 split with sci-fi being the majority but the show still deals with fantastic elements such as ghosts, demons, and various paranormal phenomena making it fit more in the speculative fiction genre (the parent of both sci-fi and fantasy) as it contains both, but is more known for only one of these genres. The source was pretty weak though I understand but it can be both a fantasy and science fiction show as these are not mutually exclusive concepts, many shows are multi-genred and X-Files would not be the first. - Shallowgravy (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The problem with this is that the show also had comedic episodes; in fact, some of its best-known episodes were really, really funny, but I would never categorize the series as a "comedy".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Thats fair, yet it still doesn't outweigh the point that the show is about the paranormal and specifically science fiction and fantasy concepts, you're not wrong, you can't label it as everything under the sun, but it still stands to reason that most of the show is either sci-fi or fantasy with some stories being a little of both. - Shallowgravy (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Taking a look at Shallowgravy's recent contributions, he has added a lot of movies and tv shows to various fantasy sub-cats, some of which were definitely not appropriate or accurate. A closer look might need to be taken at all of his recent edits, and a message left telling him not to add categories that are unsupported by article content. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I was going to bring up a discussion on this but seeing there's already one, I propose paranormal be used in place of science fiction or fantasy. I can understand somebody wanting to call it fantasy since about half the episodes go into realms that have nothing to do with sci-fi such as ghosts, black magic, etc, but I don't think fantasy would best describe it. That would put all the other episodes containing aliens, advanced experimentation and other sci-fi into the wrong category. That's why I propose paranormal. Besides that's what the X-Files means, records of FBI files of investigation into paranormal cases not yet solved or scientifically explained. If you wanna discuss them like that then let's do it here. Only thing is I'm extremely busy with university till August so excuse me for not replying until then..-Taeyebaar (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd be fine calling it paranormal. I think that covers both the alien arcs, as well as the ghost/magic/religious stuff pretty well.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It's long established as primarily science fiction. It should not be changed. Taeyebaar changed the genre to over a dozen articles without discussion yesterday, which I had to revert. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Seeing your contributions, you've made other reverts to this article without discussion as well. If anyone opposed the paranormal category (which covers BOTH sci-fi and non-sci-fi episodes) they would have expressed this disapproval. I'm gonna have to pursue this later since you don't seem to stop these reverts, which you don't have to do-Taeyebaar (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually the only other revert I did here was to Mulder's office, which is more clear in this context. That hardly needed discussion, as I'm sure most here would agree with it. Yet you reverted it back and claimed that was agreed to on this Talk page when it was never even mentioned. If that was a mistake, you didn't mention it or bother to correct it with your next edit. So questions of competency come up as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree. The "I Want to Believe" poster is a fixture of Mulder's office, in that it is something that Mulder added. The poster wasn't directly connected to the X-Files office, other than the office being occupied by Mulder, who then put the poster up.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added supernatural as a genre since not all the episodes are sci-fi. Leave it at that and do not edit war over it again. You could have gotten us both blocked.-Taeyebaar (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not important if some think not all episodes were sci-fi. The series is primarily sci-fi, so that's in the lead. Calling it an "American science fiction, supernatural, horror, drama television series" is almost tripping over itself - it's verbose. You seemed to sense that, as you added commas, but we don't put commas in genre descriptions. Your newly added supernatural doesn't even link to a genre article, unlike the others. So yeah, I'm reverting you again. Stop putting in these things and announcing no one can touch them. You've got no consensus. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who keeps reverting them to your liking and then announcing that people didn't ask your permission. Also is it a coincidence that when you came on my talk page, you looked through my contributions and decided to revert that section even though it had been left alone. I'll see what can be done about your disruptive editing-Taeyebaar (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  • it seems my suspicions of you looking through my contributions and repeatedly reverting my edits are correct. You recently also reverted my edits to the Lord of the Flies article as well.-Taeyebaar (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
If you might notice, on July 17 I wrote above It's long established as primarily science fiction. It should not be changed. Taeyebaar changed the genre to over a dozen articles without discussion yesterday, which I had to revert. I stand by that. Gen. Quon reverted your last edit as well. You have no consensus. If you're so determined to label sci-fi projects with your own specifically tailored subgenres, I suggest you start your own blog. An encyclopedia is not the place for it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I added supernatural to it so I would not have to remove the sci-fi part because you are reverting paranormal which covers both sci-fi and non sci-fi episodes, not to mention the second X-Files movie which had nothing to do with science fiction whatsoever. People were fine with paranormal until you came and reverted it so I was trying to keep it encyclopedia while keeping you satisfied.

But this isn't really about one article. You are looking through my contributions and reverting me on every article and then demanding people didn't get your permission to make edits. You first make excuses that no discussion was made, then your next excuse is since you personally disagree, no consensus was made. I provide you sources on my talk page, since that was one of your demands (and a valid one) but you still go on reverting with one excuse after another, the latest being that it's "long time established" so it's clear you just want to look for excuses to revert others, especially me. You also make edits without discussion, but will use that as an excuse when others make edits without your permission. Now you see why I have to bring this to the notice of the administrators.-Taeyebaar (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you read my last post just above? Gen. Quon reverted your last edit as well. You have no consensus. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes he was perfectly fine with paranormal till you searched my contributions, as you did on multiple articles came and revered it. You on the other hand either don't read my replies and deliberately ignore them. You say one editors agreement with me is not enough for me to have consensus on my side, now you use this one single editors agreement with you to claim that consensus is on your side. (???)-Taeyebaar (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

One person who momentarily agreed with you is not consensus, especially when others disagreed, and as said above, Gen. Quon now disagrees with you as well, saying it is a sci-fi series primarily when he reverted you. So it's unbelievable you cite him when you took out sci-fi in your last edit. You also are now are going against a cited source that you left in place, as if it backs your change. This show is long established as primarily science fiction. You need consensus to make a change from that. I do not need consensus to revert back to what it has been for years. When things are disputed you're supposed to discuss and wait for agreement, leaving the page as it had long been until it's settled. And you certainly don't claim you have agreement from someone who most recently said it's primarily sci-fi. I suggest you stop WP:edit warring over genres.- Gothicfilm (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit war over excessive detail and addition of a fansite as a reliable source[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been adding what I believe to be excessive detail on the article regarding the use of Google Group as a source ([4]). This contravenes WP:RS and WP:V. Does anyone have additional thoughts on this matter? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I moved a bit of the info on "Beyond the Sea" to the respective article. However, the vast majority of the paragraph about "EBE" is entirely wirtten from what appears to be original research; I checked the "source" and it was a fragment of an interview that backed-up a single line of the paragraph. The rest of the section had no sources and was OR. I agree that it should remain free of this excessive amount of detail (or at least until better sources can be found than a Google Group Archive of an old message board).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I linked to the wrong source in my edit. Someone who has permission to edit the article please add in the relevant facts about the way the producers and writers were inspired to an unprecedented degree (recall this was 1993-4) on online fans' suggestions/discussions in many of their key episodes: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

citaction/reason for departure of Duchovny?[edit]

The abstract contains the sentence, "In the last two seasons Anderson became the star, while Duchovny appeared intermittently, following a lawsuit." Does anyone have a citation or more complete description of this (like who sued whom over what exactly)? Mzandrew (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There's some good sources in the seventh and eight season pages. I can't believe it really isn't explained that well on this page. I'll try to fix that ASAP.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I added a new paragraph in the "Casting" section that explains all of this in-depth. How's it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The X-Files Wikia[edit]

If anybody is interested by this show's wikia, there's a lot of job to be done there :

This is one of the worse wikia I've ever seen.

--Caviar d'Aberdeen (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Graphic design[edit]

As there seems to be some dispute on the font family used for credits and captions in the series I felt it would ne helpful to specify it as being ITC American Typewriter. My additioned was rolled back without a reason. Please don't roll this change back as it is a important contribution. Theking2 (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem was that you did't specify a source. Original Research (OR) is not allowed on Wikipedia.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)