Talk:The X-Files/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Contents

Linking

Please do not run automatic link generators on this article. In Wikipedia, internal links are supposed to connect an article to as many other articles as possible, but only WHERE THE LINK IS RELEVANT TO THE CONTEXT OF THE SENTENCE.

Someone ran the whole article through a link generator, linking things which were completely distracting to the article and the links that would actually be helpful to a reader.

For example, if a sentence mentions the Queen Mary, Old growth forest, or Haitian refugees being the location or subject of an episode, these things can be linked, but if an item mentions the progressive rock band Tool having recorded a song that mentions The X-Files, progressive rock should not really be linked because it's not directly relevant to this article, it's only used to categorize something that is (i.e. Tool, who should be linked). Otherwise you get to a point where every word but "the" and "a" can be linked.

Importance of the show to Fox

Shouldn't the importance of this show to the Fox's emergence as a major player be touched on? Because with all due respect to The Simpsons; The X-Files is the biggest hit the Fox network has ever had. Mattm1138 22:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering The Simpsons (continued) run, I would have to respectfully disagree that the X-Files is the biggest hit on Fox. The Simpsons is still going strong, and shows no signs of slowing down. And with the upcoming movie, I think it has clearly surpassed the X-Files. Bytebear 22:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This is something that should definitely be looked into more. The fact that it was one of the first major hits on FOX is indisputable, and in the intro currently. However we should have a cite for this fact. I've seen it listed on the FOX network wiki page, that The X-Files was the first Fox show to get into the "year-end top 25" in the ratings. I assume this would have been before 1996/7/8, since by then the show was already closer to the year end top 15 or even top 10 (in 1996-1997).
Nevertheless, the Fox network page or The Simpsons page ALSO list The simpsons as the first Fox show in the "year end top 20." Did The Simpsons actually attain huge mass success slightly later than The X-Files did or something, even though Simpsons was more widely known from the beginning and by the peak of X-Files popularity, Simpsons had already eclipsed it?
I couldn't find any source external to Wikipedia for these records (first Fox show in top 25 or top 20), either. 172.148.185.131 15:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Vote on these intro paragraphs

I know they're not that different, but which version of the intro is best? Is it best to mention science fiction/drama as genres in the first sentence? I don't think it's necessary, since they're in the info box at the right, and the quote about sci-fi from the Times gives a bit clearer picture where the show lies as far as genre (appeals to many who are not sci-fi genre fans, and won awards in drama categories, yet is also fundamentally sci fi in the concepts).

The X-Files is an award-winning television series, created by Chris Carter, which first aired on September 10, 1993 and ended on May 19, 2002. The show was one of the FOX network's first major hits, and its main characters and slogans (e.g. "The Truth Is Out There," "Trust No One," "Deny Everything," "I Want to Believe") became pop culture touchstones. Described by The New York Times as "the defining series of the 1990s," The X-Files was seen to "make science fiction accessible to viewers who didn't consider themselves sci-fi fans,"[1] coinciding with the era's widespread distrust of governments, interest in conspiracy theories and spirituality, and belief in the existence of extraterrestrial life.[2]

OR...

The X-Files is a television series, created by Chris Carter, which first aired on September 10, 1993 and ended on May 19, 2002. The show was one of the FOX network's first major hits, and its main characters and slogans (e.g. "The Truth Is Out There," "Trust No One," "Deny Everything," "I Want to Believe") became pop culture touchstones. The X-Files was seen as a defining series of the 1990s, coinciding with the era's widespread distrust of governments, interest in conspiracy theories and spirituality, and belief in the existence of extraterrestrial life.[2] According to The New York Times, it "made science fiction accessible to viewers who didn't consider themselves sci-fi fans,"[1] winning awards including Emmys and a Peabody.

Widespread government distrust was not a phenomenon new to the 1990s as anyone who lived through Vietnam and Watergate would tell you. I don't think vote is the right term here. Either one is fine, I like the intro as it is on the page, especially without the fact I nitpicked at awhile back :)A mcmurray 16:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't say it was NEW to the '90s, just that it was characteristic of then (for that matter, it's even MORE characteristic of now, I would say- the distrust of government and interest in spirituality, though probably not as much the interest in aliens). Anyway that assertion was made in the New York Times, not me. But the way "era" is used, it could mean the whole post-Watergate, post-60s, whatever modern era (after all, The Twilight Zone, a previous equivalent of TXF, preceded all that stuff). Actually I was almost going to say "postmodern era's", instead of "era's", but that might have been too pretentious. X-Files is often called postmodern though.
The main thing I was asking was two things. #1, should we direct quote an author that says it's "the defining series of the 1990s" upfront when this fact is not anything close to a universal opinion (even if it appeared in the Times), or should we take it out of quotes and soften it a bit by saying it was considered a defining series of the 1990s (which is pretty indisputable) again citing said author.
And #2, is it more appropriate to say "The X-Files is an award-winning television show" right upfront as a description (which sounds a bit POV/press release to me, just in the phrasing, even though it's perfectly true), or to name a couple of the biggest awards distinctly after giving a general description? I was playing with word order a lot basically, it's the same information in both, but it has a different feeling. There's a lot of blanket statements there, they're very relevant and well sourced, it's just a question of how to present it so it seems to have the air of fact rather than opinion, if we want this to be the intro of a featured article eventually.
And yeah I know "voting" is not a policy of wikipedia. :) 172.148.185.131 19:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Decided the second one's better, less POV. if anyone disagrees, change at will. 172.148.185.131 20:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The X-Files Magazine

What do you think about creating an article or at least devote some space here to The X-Files Magazine ?

DVD?

  • Can anybody confirm that X-Files was the first TV series sold as an entire season on DVD. That would be notable for the article if it was true, but I can't confirm it. ~Lyuokdea, 8:43 PM CST August 23,2005
It wasn't, certainly not in the UK at least. The Prisoner was released on DVD in entirety very early. I know because I remember paying an arm and a leg for it. Sjc 01:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
But damn, what a fine show. Zepheus 07:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I was almost sure that it was the Simpsons that started the season-by-season series bandwagon. One thing I’m sure we’ll find is true is that whatever the show that started it, it was on Fox. ~PhantomBPR

  • Can anybody update the table with TXF DVD information, with list of extras added to each season ? That would be interesting and helpful for sure, as well as it would complete this part of the article. (83.20.104.54 23:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC))
    • I could try to do this, but how to change the table ? For example by adding an additional columne between "Originally aired" and "DVD release date - Region 1/Region 2" ? (83.20.132.113 18:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC))

time slot

The first few seasons were broadcast on Friday nights at 9pm before moving to Sundays. If someone can find out (or remember) when the time slot changed this should be added to the article. Shoehorn 22:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

it was sometime near the beginning of the fourth season (fall 1996), maybe the very beginning or maybe several episodes into the season. Carter was starting his new show Millennium around that time and I think it may have taken the old X-Files spot on Friday nights. by looking up the original airdates which are easily found in Wiki you should be able to figure out what day they fell on.
I've also heard that Carter initially was very reluctant to change the timeslot and did so only under network pressure, but it did work out for the best ratings-wise, expanding the base beyond the type of people likely to be in on fridays. He had some special attachment to Friday night as it used to be when his inspiration Kolchak: The Night Stalker was on as well. (I can't be absolutely sure of all that, but you should easily be able to find a source.)
According to a feature article in the October 27, 1996 LA Times TV schedule on page 5, the first X-Files episode to air in its permanent Sunday time slot was on October 27. Accordong to the article, Chris Carter said of the move: "I thought it was home, so my resistance was based on pretty much a feeling. Everyone has said that there is a great viewing audience on Sunday night. I've always felt we do the same good cult show, and if it finds a mainstream audience, great. I don't want to go looking for one necessarily. But I know why they made the move. Sunday night was a troubled night for them as far as programming. Programming is a chess game, and they took a strong piece and moved it to a weaker place to shore up the strength there." Franklin Bynum 02:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Morgan & Wong

I found a really nice site that's a shrine to Glen Morgan & James Wong (plus Darin Morgan) but has some great interviews with them and anecdotes about the inspiration for various aspects of various scripts they did, plus lost scenes that were cut from "One Breath," "Clyde Bruckman" and others due to time constraints. I haven't seen this information elsewhere so I think it would be a useful link for the article, as these guys did write or oversee many of the series' best and most famous episodes.

For example, has info on Flukeman-- the costume took 6 hours to be put on Darin Morgan, had to be discarded and remade everyday of shooting after being immersed in sewage for the day's shoot, and he was in the thing for 20 hours straight at times basically unable to move (plus with two layers on contact lenses on each eye to tint it properly), so he urinated inside his suit. After a few 20-hour days of that, the guy damn well deserved to be an X-Files writer.

URL is here: http://www.morganandwongonline.com/episodes.html


What can this possibly mean? Can someone ellaborate?

One pivotal shipper episode was "Triangle" (6x03), in which Mulder and Scully shared their first on-camera kiss - on a ship, in fact - although the episode did not actually take place in reality.

Most of the episode was apparently a dream Mulder had after being involved in a shipwreck in the Bermuda Triangle. Brandon39 03:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you! Trollderella 03:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Alienware

The 'fan faire' section seems to be thinly-veiled Alienware marketing added by 209.42.44.132. While it may be true that The X-Files inspired the company's founders, I don't think that deserves an entry in the main X-Files article. Any objections to getting rid of it? Chrismear 00:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The ufological references used by the Alienware brand are not distinct to the X-Files but are ubiquitous in paranormal culture. Even if the X-Files was a major influence on the development of the company, it is not worth mentioning in this article.

# of episodes: 201 vs. 202 (or even 203), reality vs. production #

The "X-Files" article incorrectly lists the episode count of the series as 202, and every time I change it, someone incorrectly changes it back. Though "The Truth" was assigned two production codes (9x19 and 9x20) due to it's double-length and has subsequently been split up into two parts for reruns, it originally aired as a single episode, with only one title and end credits sequence. The Season 9 DVD reflects this, it plays as originally aired and it labled as episode #19, and the packaging officially counts 19 episodes on the complete set. In any event, to say that there were 202 episodes has no merit. If one strictly adheres to the production numbers, then one must also accept Episode 3x99, which was the interactive "X-Files" video game. The footage for this game was shot by the "X-Files" crew during the show's third season and was given a production code for internal purposes. The fact that the game is obviously not an "X-Files" episode completely invalidates the production codes as a strict basis for episode count.

Though this is my first venture in this discussion, I agree with you. It would be nice to know who you are, btw. Lady Aleena 08:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I've changed the page to say 201, and added a brief comment to explain. chrismear 01:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This really depends on the person. Almost every show now breaks up 2 hour long episodes (or hour long for 30 minute shows) into two seperate episodes. When you buy a DVD of 24 episodes, and two episodes originally aired together and then is made into two episode for subsequent viewing, it's considered 2 seperate episodes. I think this brings up three different words we should consider. It's 201 "Shows", 202 Episodes, 203 productions. But claims about the DVD or such are iffy because DVDs tend not to be produced by people who were even working on the show at time. However the claim about the Video game doesn't really work as meantioned a production code is different than a episode. In addition there's 202 episodes in syndication, not 201, which could lead to some confusion.--Kinglink 04:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Fan terminology"

Did the list of fan terms come from a different source/list, and if so, where? Some of them seem needlessly obscure, or have at least fallen out of use. If no one has an issue, I'll pare them down to more commonly-used terms (seeing as they're an anecdotal part of the page, anyway) Frey at last 01:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of the Trivia too trivial

I'm a big X-Files fan, but some of the entries in the Trivia section seem too trivial to me. "Scully was named after sportscaster Vin Scully" is interesting, but "The number of Scully's files (stolen by Duane Barry) is 73317" is not (unless, of course, that number is supposed to be significant.) Anyone object to it being trimmed down? Pelago 14:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

From article trivia section about the number 42: "The number is also featured in the plot of the ABC drama series Lost." Is this relevant in any way? 24.81.28.51 21:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"42" is the answer to life, the universe, and everything, according to the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. mulder, i believe, lived in apt #42 (right?). tongue-in-cheek humor for sci-fi nerds.

Mythology section

I hope no one minds but I have added and expanded on the "Mythology Section". As a fan of the X-Files (as is usual with everyone - of the main plot rather than the other epidodes) I thought it wise to add this section with the episodes in order, incorporating the movie to make more sense. It takes up little room and is quite significant so thoght It a good idea, hope others do. Maybe it needs tidying up a little but I think it should be kept never the less. :0)

It's a good start, stranger. What I think the page needs (or actually a separate page) is a quick timeline of the X-Files, going over the mythology season by season. It would list things that actually happen in order, and not just episodes. Something like this, but this is WAY too long. Also, I'm not actually a fan of the mythology myself, and much prefer the stand-alone episodes. I find calling these episodes "Monster-of-the-Week" episodes kind of derogatory. I do understand that it's common phraseology and should be mentioned, but feel that it lends a biased attitude on this page. I think that the standalone episodes should be listed simply as stand-alone episodes and not monster of the week episodes. Zepheus 07:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Monster of the week is actually a common term (or at least, not limited to X-Philes). I've got no problem with using it, but we should be clear about what the separation is. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone has removed the breakdown of "mytholology" episodes by season and replaced it with just a list of episodes on the "X-Files Mythology" DVD set. I haven't seen all the episodes mentioned on the by-season list, but I suspect that the DVD set leaves out relevant episodes. Is there a consensus on which episodes are considered part of the mytharc? 70.226.180.159 03:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I suspect in the decision to make the mythology DVD's, they left out some mythology episodes to make the count 60, such as "The Christmas Carol" saga, "Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man" and "The Unnatural". I don't know why they left out those episodes, but they need to be included in this list. I also believe that episodes such as "Lenord Betts" could also be considered mythology because it is when Scully realizes she has cancer. But that should be decided by everyone here and not just me. Does anyone perhaps have a copy of the old mythology list we were all happy with?--Exer 505 03:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it in the article history? I don';t edit this page very often so I'm not sure which revision you're saying is the one we were "all happy with". -- nae'blis (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I believe the one we're all happy with is the one with the mythology episodes broken down by seasons. --Exer 505 19:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I finally figured out how to go into the history of this article and replaced the mythology DVD format with the individual season mythology format. I also added The Unnatural to the list of mythology episodes. I'm sure we can all agree that this is mythology. I sure hope this section isn't changed again.--Exer 505 15:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I love the mythology section in its current condition. I think it is the best it has ever been as of April 22nd 2007.

Thanks, I think the hidden notes will help to keep pointless changes from appearing there. However I noticed someone made this comment here and deleted: "I fail to see why Wetwired is placed within the mythology. This episode has nothing to do with the conspiracy or the colonization, the only reason anything alluding to such appeared was because of Scully's ultimate fear that Mulder would betray her. Other than that it has no place in the mythology."
It's a good point. Of all the episodes listed, Wetwired is the one with the least claim on being "mythology" (which in the context of this show, really means "canon", since events in most other episodes are free to be forgotten for continuity purposes if the producers/viewers want). It is not done in the style of the other mythology episodes. However I think it still qualifies as a mythology episode- mostly because it marks the last appearance of X until (**SPOILER**) his death in the next season opener. Even if they never returned to the specifics of the actual plot in this episode (as they never returned to the one with Deep Throat in Ghost in the Machine, or CSM in F. Emasculata), Wetwired is different because in the end the plot does center on X's place in the conspiracy hierarchy and his relationship with CSM. It's also very important for Mulder and Scully and their relationship with each other, and their families. The combination of those two key mythology factors (conspiracy plot, importance of the plot for the main characters- as such emotional scenes are usually confined to mythology) makes it a mythology episode.
Now whether Red Museum or Wetwired is more mythology would be really subjective. I would say Wetwired, because Red Museum follows the monster of the week formula in giving you the feeling none of what happens there will ever be addressed later, even though that particular conspiracy plot should have slightly more long term relevance, whereas Wetwired feels more in tune with the mythology episodes as far as fitting into the long term puzzle. 172.165.143.225 09:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though someone has deleted both Dreamlands and the Unnatural from the mythology plotline. If Wetwired and Red Museum can be placed as mythology, then there is no reason why Dreamland 1 and 2 and the Unnatural shouldn't be.

You can put The Unnatural back if you want, because it's faithful to the overall story, with the alien bounty hunter. However as explained in the note, if The Unnatural goes in, then there's no reason for Travelers not to go in because it's also a flashback mythology episode, Unusual Suspects has to go in for the same reason, and pretty soon all Lone Gunmen episodes go in (that means Three of a Kind, Jump the Shark), not to mention Dreamland, which means Jose Chung's must also be mythology, and if that is, which is a parody, then why isn't Demons or Paper Hearts or Beyond the Sea or Elegy which is such a serious and important episode dealing with Mulder/Scully's family/sister/cancer etc etc etc
And what about Avatar, it involves Skinner and the conspiracy, even though it's not like what happened there was ever addressed again. And what about Drive or Terms of Endearment or Tithonus, which has Mulder and Scully being pressured by Spender and Kersh. Or Never Again or Field Trip which deals with M&S' relationship, developing from the mythology episodes. Or Field Where I Died, which mentions the Smoking Man.
You have to draw the line somewhere. Do we want a list that includes every episode of TXF that has ties to the long term story? Because then we have to list nearly every great X-Files episode that was made. Example: Tooms is the episode where the Cigarette Smoking Man's plans became clear, and Skinner first appeared. The Host is the one where Mr. X first appeared. In Quagmire and Detour Mulder and Scully talk about their "quest". Are those "mythology" episodes too?
The alien comedies are just not considered "mythology" episodes by fans, or critics, or the creators of the show (they ARE in the Lone Gunmen universe, but that's a different show and mythology!). Episodes that follow a monster format are not either, with rare exceptions (Sleepless, Wetwired) only if the plot really centers around the conspiracy. And I would say Tooms should be put in there before Red Museum goes back- because of the long term importance and the final scene of Tooms. And there's no way Tooms, which is considered one of the classic examples of monsters of the week, can be listed as mythology. What sets Wetwired and Sleepless apart is, as I said, combination of government conspiracy plot at the highest levels AND long term consequences for the characters. Red Museum has a sort of government conspiracy plot but we don't see the highest levels involved, and it takes the form of a monster of the week- also there are no long term consequences for the characters. 172.148.117.110 23:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

X-Files Theme Song

Why isn't the catchy and famous X-Files themesong (intro) mentioned in this article? 194.144.242.224 17:06, 29 March 2006

Do the X-Files really exist?

Can someone clarify whether the X-files really exist within the FBI and add this piece of info to the article? Thanks!

There is no way to confirm if they really exist, and it would not be appropriate for the article anyway. --Charles 04:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
If it would be verifiable it absolutely would be appropriate. Just as mentioning the real Judge Advocate General in the JAG article is appropriate. TheDJ (talkcontribsWikiProject Television) 11:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No. There are some case files that the FBI has handled that get kinda squirrelly. But, there is no group of X-Files type agents that investigate paranormal phenomena. That said, the BSU (Behavioral Science Unit) has a reputation for weirdness in their case history. They deal with serial crimes, and the like. Both Mulder and Frank Black were members of that unit at one time in their history with the FBI.
As for an actual X-Files designation on files? That's just weird enough that Hoover might have done such a thing, but, it doesn't seem like the kind of system that would have been maintained after his departure. (StarkeRealm 18:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Security Council Resolution 1013

In the Article page it is mentioned under trivia that Security Council Resolution 1013 would state that any government capturing an alien would kill it immediately. I've searched for the text of this resolution, but Resolution 1013 from the UN actually deals with Rwanda. Am I correct in assuming the reference to this resolution is not a piece of trivia but actually a piece of fiction?

Yeah. It's fiction alright. I believe it's from the episode EBE, first season. I'm not quite sure why its trivia. It's also up above in the Mythology section. I recommend deleting it. In fact, I'm going to delete it right now. Zepheus 07:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, 1013 is the name of Chris Carter's production company, that is why they used that number. --Charles 04:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Page Structure/Order

Man, this page is such a mess. Looking at the WikiProject page for the correct structure of a TV show page, this one is quite off. I'm thinking that things like the Trivia, Taglines, Fan Terminology and Around the World sections should all be under one section with a number of subsections. Plus, the Character/Cast list needs to be moved up and other things moved around. Oh, what the heck, I'm going to give it a shot. Let me know if I mess this up. Zepheus 07:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It really is a mess - godspeed! Frey 06:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wold Newton speculation

Would anyone go up in flames if I included the Wold Newton speculations about character origins at the very end of the various characters' articles, if any? Fox Mulder has a most interesting one, and I would like to add it, but wanted to check with other editors first before getting shot down.
-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 08:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I would definatly say that that is a bad idea. Speculation of any kind is usually not the kind of material wanted on Wikipedia. --InShaneee 19:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Good thing I asked before I caused flames to rise.
-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 19:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Careful referencing, supported non-original research, and explanation of why X-Files may be Wold Newton link of importance may merit a brief section. There are certainly Wold Newton speculation sections on other character bios-- it's a particular sort of "speculation" that is well-covered and documented in good Wikipedia articles -- but mostly for key figures like Sherlock Holmes. The trick will be demonstrating importance, and avoiding pure fanfic. Chris Stangl 23:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is what I will do, let you decide whether or not it might be worth a mention in the Fox Mulder article. Please see From Russia with Madness where the story of Fox Mulder began according to Wold Newton. Because of that article, Fox Mulder is on the List of Wold Newton Universe characters.
-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 03:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
PS. If not a small section, how about a long link? From Russia with Madness - Wold Newton Universe speculation on Fox Mulder's origins
It's still just speculation, which is the biggest issue. --InShaneee 14:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that it's all we have now. I don't think that Chris Carter (I hope I got the name right) would be at all interested in giving us a complete biological geneology of Fox Mulder or Dana Scully or anyone else from the shows. It would tear away at the very core of them. He might not even care about this franchise anymore. For all we know, he could have written this off as a job well done and gone onto a new project. I doubt we will ever see anything official again.
-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 17:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Still, we can't add speculation just because that's all we have to go on. --InShaneee 17:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see this answered, but would there be any objection to just a link that looks like the following
-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 07:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
My guess is this is being voted down by non-Wold Newton "historians". The Wold Newton family is certainly important enough to have hundreds of references throughout Wikipedia, and is slightly different from other forms of crossover fanfic "speculation": the roots are in real, published books by a real, world-famous author. Since the main body of Wold Newtonian writing is in the form of documented articles, while it's not X-Files canon proper, it can still be supported in its own context. I say Be Bold and add some carefully annotated notes to the Mulder biography. If it gets deleted, it just means you need to source it better. Chris Stangl 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Parodies

Could we perhaps include a list of parodies? About every comedy show in the 90's parodied The X-files. I just though it would be a fun little list to make.--Exer 505 15:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that would be encyclopedic, though I'm sure one or two that got major exposure could be mentioned. --InShaneee 00:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with InShaneee about that. That kind of thing should be worked into the Legacy section. I also think that a LOT of this trivia needs to be expunged or moved to other parts of the article. Some of it IS useful, but so much is just pointless listing of unimportant facts. I propose a serious cleanup session in order to get this page more in line with Wikipedia standards. In fact, I'd like to spearhead that if anybody is with me. Zepheus 02:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup.

I have marked this page for cleanup. You can see my reasons why on the Wikipedia:Cleanup Page. I'm hoping that fans of the show (like myself) and anyone interested in improving Wikipedia can help make this page better. If you are interested in a focused cleanup, please contact me on my X-Files cleanup subpage. Zepheus 05:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. As self-appointed ‘’X-Files Cleanup Task Leader’’, I have created a list of things that I think need to be worked on for this page. Charles has already joined on to the cleanup team. Comments and suggestions are absolutely necessary, so please leave them under the appropriate tab, or make a new subheading if need be.

I've made a subpage on my profile in order to facilitate the cleanup process. Click here to go there. - Zepheus 21:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Cast

The cast section is rediciously boring. It would be better to describe some of the characters a bit within the X-Files fictional universe. - TheDJ (talkcontribsWikiProject Television) 11:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Legacy

The X-Files has influenced a large number of television shows (such as Supernatural, which is mentioned), films, and even musicians (Catatonia) since it first aired. This is barely touched upon in the Legacy section, and it mostly just lists a number of similar shows. There were also a number of shows that spoofed The X-Files, including The Simpsons and MadTV. I think that these should be mentioned here.

Mentioned, yes, but we do need to show some discretion when choosing what to mention. Otherwise, this could be ten pages long in itself. --InShaneee 21:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Influences

This section needs references and citations. Where did Carter say that Kolchak was the “father of The X-Files?” I know much of this is true, but it needs harder proof.

Kolchak is practically in Chris Carter's press releases. He mentioned that show ALL the time. Just check out the Carter FAQ and interviews used as references on the page.

And btw, the "father of the X-Files" thing is not in reference to the character Kolchak or the show of Kolchak: The Night Stalker (though it COULD be, according to Carter), the words were used to describe Arthur Dales, a character Carter/Spotnitz wrote who is the father of the "X file" cases, WITHIN the X-Files universe (see episode "Travelers"), in that he was the first to investigate them. The part was written specifically for Darren McGavin who played Kolchak to appear in the role. 172.148.185.131 14:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Awards

This list only touches upon the many awards the show has won (or been nominated for). I don’t think we need to list them all, but there should be a mention that it won awards from many different agencies and not just Emmys. For example, it won the Environmental Media Award twice during its run. [1]

History

Early Fan Acclaim This section reads as follows – ‘’“Many fans consider the show's creative peak to have occurred before the fifth season....”’’ Where does this information come from? According to GEOS, the most popular seasons are Seasons 5 and 6 [2]. Also, this section notes that The X-Files won only one Cinematography Emmy. While this is true, the show was nominated for ‘’ Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography in Regular Series’’ by the ASC 10 times, and won the award twice(see link #1). I think words like “legendary” need to be removed; that doesn’t feel like NPOV. We can possibly say “popular” perhaps, but not “legendary.” This section could also possible be reordered. The show underwent a number of changes behind-the-scenes that affected its tone and quality. Perhaps this section could be ordered by “era.” For example, ‘’’Seasons 1-2’’’, ‘’’Seasons 3-4’’’, etc.

Miscellaneous

Trivia A lot of this information is important and interesting, and needs to be moved to the appropriate category. For example, “When "Requiem" (the season 7 finale) completed shooting, the producers were unsure if they would come back for an eighth season,” could easily be worked into the history section. And a lot of this information is completely unnecessary and unimportant. For example, “Scully's telephone number is 555-3564 and (202) 555-6431 (at home),” can be moved to that character’s page if it isn’t already there. It’s simply not important to the show.

Please see the ideas on Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles and it's talk page and move quotes to WikiQuote. - TheDJ (talkcontribsWikiProject Television) 11:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Taglines/Fan Terminology/Relationship to other Ten Thirteen Productions shows

Not sure what to do with these.

I suggest shortening the Taglines section to a discussion of how taglines were used (instead of just a list of every one), a complete removal of the Fan Terminology section, and a little bit of cleanup for the Relationship To section. --InShaneee 21:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
These changes sound good. A short explanation of fan terminology and any importance might be good, with two examples (CSM and Shipper, the most relevant in my book). The Relationship section needs to be changed into paragraphs, as opposed to a list. - Zepheus 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Shipper isn't an X-Files specific term, though. --InShaneee 22:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
According to that page, The X-Files newsgroup is probably the first instance of the term in North America, making it notable enough for the X-Files page. - Zepheus 22:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Huh, interesting. Works for me, in that case. --InShaneee 23:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Video Games

This could probably be moved to legacy.

The X-Files around the world

At the very least, this section needs an intro stating how many countries the show has aired in, where it’s most popular, and places where it’s banned (if any). Most of these foreign titles are devastatingly uninteresting and unimportant. Zepheus 23:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps where possible try to find a corresponding "interwiki" link for "other languages". It would have the "foreign name" by itself. TheDJ (talkcontribsWikiProject Television) 11:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links

This list needs to be shortened significantly. So much of this is junk. - Zepheus 16:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

table of contents?

Where did the TOC go? Am I missing something? - Zepheus 02:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh...no...that's...odd... --InShaneee 03:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try to force a TOC later, when I can do it correctly. - Zepheus 00:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

recurring characters.

I made a new page for recurring characters. I moved the whole list to that page. I don't think all of the names on the main page need to be removed, but perhaps half. Any ideas? - Zepheus 00:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

removed trivia.

I removed these trivia because I can not see their importance. If they are important, they should be worked into the main article and not simply plopped into trivia. I suggest if you do reincorporate them that you strike it from this list.

  • The number 42 occurs frequently (Mulder lives in Apartment 42, Mulder has seen Plan 9 From Outer Space 42 times, etc.). This is The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything in Douglas Adams' novel The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
  • You can identify episodes directed by Kim Manners; he frames the camera so as to show the face, but not the top of the head.
  • From season 2 on, the firearm of choice for most characters is the SIG-Sauer P228.
  • The season 5 episode "Bad Blood" contains a number of references and homages to classic vampire and horror films, one of the most subtle being the name of the town in which the episode takes place. Known as Chaney, Texas, the name is most likely a reference to famous 1940s monster movie actor Lon Chaney.
  • In the season 8 episode "Salvage", Robert Patrick remarks "You only see metal men in movies." In the film Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Robert Patrick played a metal man.
  • David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson have reprised their roles as Mulder and Scully on numerous other shows, including The Simpsons
  • The number 1121, and especially the time 11:21 PM, appears regularly on The X-Files, particularly in the early seasons. This is a reference by Chris Carter to his wife Dori's birthday, November 21.
  • Bruce Campbell was originally considered for the role of Doggett, but was turned down because he guest starred in an earlier episode.
  • While the show hinted that Skinner had a quiet crush on Scully, in real life, Mitch Pileggi (Skinner) met his wife Arlene Warren on the set of X-Files, while she was Gillian Anderson's (Scully) stand-in. In later episodes, she gets some screen time... as Skinner's secretary, Arlene, credited as Arlene Pileggi.

- Zepheus 03:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the following pieces of trivia in addition to those already gone:


  • Mulder has been shot 4 times (once in "Beyond the Sea" , once in "Anasazi," via ricochet in "The Goldberg Variation," and once in the film). Scully has been shot twice (in "Young At Heart" 1x15 and "Tithonus" 6x09). Skinner was shot once (in "Piper Maru" 3x15). This is not counting "How The Ghosts Stole Christmas", in which Mulder and Scully were both shot in a hallucination — by each other.
  • Mulder used his gun 16 times, Scully 13.

Thingymajig 11:55, 8 June 2006 (BST)

This was removed from the Fan Terminology section. Couldn't find any official website for it. Doesn't seem notable enough for front page.

  • SPCDD - Society for the the Prevention of Cruelty to David Duchovny - (web-site and group formed after news sources in Canada made "cruel" comments about Duchovny in the news)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zepheus (talkcontribs)

List Of Episodes Of The X-Files

This section also needs quite a lot of work. There is, on the season 2 section, an ideal template which should be replicated for the other 8 seasons. We also need to come up with more concise synopses for all remaining 170+ episodes. It will be worth it in the end however.

Thingymajig 20:49, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Can Cleanup Sticky Be Removed?

I quote this from the original clean-up marking page:

" Contains way too many lists, which comprise roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of the page. A substantial amount of information on the page is fan speculation rather than sourced references. The show was important in the history of television, but the Wikipedia page has become a collection of fan trivia. Much of the information can be integrated into the rest of the page (with some effort)."

Most of the superfluous trivia has been deleted, making the article much more concise. The speculatory sections of the article have either been sourced, or if they are entirely unnecessary, deleted entirely. I, along with others, especially Zepheus, have endeavoured to make this article fufill the cleanup requirements and I personally believe they have been. Okay, the article can constantly be improved and edited, and I shall continue to do so, but the key cleanup requirements, IMO, are fufilled. Can it be removed from the cleanup section?

Thingymajig 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article looks so much better now. I can't take credit for that much of the work, with all the work Thingymajig, Xfpisher and others did. I think the two areas that still need cleaning are the trivia. I'm going to see if I can move some of the trivia info up into the main article. The work that's been done with the 1013 section looks good, but maybe it could be organized into paragraphs instead of a list? - Zepheus 16:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it now. It meets the requirements for cleanup sticky to be removed Thingymajig 15:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

cast of characters

That Cast section looks great. Who did that? Only one comment, I don't think the years on show section needs parentheses around the years, such as (1995-1997). I think simply 1995-1997 would look better (and be more correct). I'll make this change myself if there are no arguments against it. - Zepheus 21:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

'Twas me. Thingymajig 22:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I figured it was you. Awesome work. All the work that you've done on this page is fantastic. Surely more work than I did, and I am thoroughly impressed with the page's improvement. - Zepheus 23:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The cleanup.

I would like to semi-officially announce that the X-Files cleanup is complete. A lot of people strived to make this article better, and I would like to thank them for their hard work on this. I would especially like to thank Xfpisher, Thingymajig, InShaneee and Bunbury18. Without them, this article wouldn't have improved from fan-cruft to a quality article.

Let's not let it end here. Everybody keep up the fact-checking, trivia-shortening and grammar-checking. - Zepheus 23:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Citations

I imagine this is one of the main stumbling blocks that will prevent the article from becoming featured. Overall, this article has a lack of citations, especially in the influences section. But I'm having problems finding half decent interviews with Carter and the ilk. Anyone point some good ones out? Thingymajig 11:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess the first ones that I can think of are the interviews that he did for the videocasette box sets. Those are only for the first three seasons. I'm not sure if they are available through other means (such as the DVDs). I would guess that they are. I think these are fairly valuable. He's not hyping up the show as much as in a featurette, because the customer's have already bought the tapes. I have these tapes, by the way. - Zepheus 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm hoping that can cover the 'influences' section. I'd be willing to bet that those mentions came from either interviews or commentary/behind the scenes. --InShaneee 01:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

While we're talking about this, I'd like to bring up the 'Legacy' section. It's completely unsourced, and it seems like the only arguments for it would be original research, as well (barring some citable interviews with writer/producers saying how much they love X-Files). If these can't be found, I think it might just be best to condense it to a single sentence for insertion in the introduction. Thoughts? --InShaneee 01:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The push to GA!(Now Accomplished)

Thought I'd bring up a few niggling little concerns I wasn't able to work out on my own with the article since it's now 'crunch time' :) .

  1. In "History" > "Seasons 1-3" > second paragraph, second sentance, aside from it being unwieldly from an english perspective, I can't for the life of me figure out who that "their" is referring to, since a good half a dozen characters were mentioned in the previous sentence.
  2. In "Seasons 4-6", I want to rewrite the first sentence (do we really need to explain Mytharc again?), but I'm not quite sure how to do it so that it still flows with the previous section. Additionally: "...Carter refuses to substantiate whether the two characters ever had sexual intercourse"; is that referencing a specific quote, or can it be rewritten to cover the canonnical ambiguity of their relationship overall?
  3. In the movie section: why should we care what cut the studios got of the film's take? Should we be spending that much of its brief summary discussing budget concerns at all?
  4. In "Seasons 7-9": That external link should probably be converted to a reference (and I really need to learn how to do that myself :P ).
  5. In "Trivia": "As has become commonplace with dramatic TV series in recent years..." Can we narrow down that timeframe a little?
  6. "Fan Terminology": More external links that could probably be refs (I'm pretty sure those are preferred).
  7. "Relationship to other..." > "The Lone Gunmen": I know it makes a lot of sense to put the info here, but this is the second time it's explained that "Jump the Shark" wraps up the spin-off.
  8. Refs: Are all those bulleted refs meant to be formatted differently from the others? Any way we can get those formatted and pointing to specific sections (or are they just general references)?
Here's to hoping, everyone, and keep up the good work. --InShaneee 02:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a crack at some of those, Thingymajig! --InShaneee 17:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I changed up the movie section. If someone wants to find a source for me, it would be much obliged. I'm having some internet difficulties. - Zepheus 00:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it was the first movie tie-in to a still running series. Off the top of my head...well, Transformers: The Movie comes to mind. --InShaneee 23:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I remember some factoid about the movie being the first something. Now I'm not sure specifically what. I'm deleting the sentence. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 22:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone readded the blurb about the studio's box office cut, as well as the assertion that this was one of the lowest grossing tv tie-ins. The second part strongly smacks of original research, and the first part I still say doesn't need to be in this article. Thoughts? --InShaneee 16:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There, it's been made a good article. Now there's the push to featured article. Thingymajig 14:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Woo! Good job all, handshakes all around. --InShaneee 17:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice! Way to go, guys. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 03:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I want to say congratulations to all of those who helped with the great improvement of this article! You should be proud of yourselves. ---Charles 03:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problems

Several of the images currently used in the article are tagged incorrectly, or missing sources or fair use rationales. I uploaded a number of them - using the older copyrighting system - but I'm a little out of my league now. I'm fine, of course, with having them deleted, or deleting them myself, but I didn't want to do that without first seeing if anyone could lend a hand. If not, and we we're infringing on copyrights by using those images here, then by all means let's delete them from the page.

Frey 08:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Trimming trivia

Sorry, I wasn't logged in when I made these cuts[3] to the Trivia section.

The section was tagged for cleanup ("This article's trivia section is too large") as of 8-5-06, so I went through and deleted several items that either I knew to be false, needed a citation or more explanation, or didn't seem actually interesting in the way of "trivia." I'll outline my reasoning for most of my deletions:

  • The X files were originally filed under "U" for "Unexplained," until they ran out of room. This isn't exactly trivia, it's just based on a kind of side joke from the flashback episode "Travelers." It doesn't have to do with the actual naming of the show.
  • Duchovny asks for Skinner to play a larger role so he, Duchovny, can get some time off. First off, it needs a citation. Secondly, which point in the series is it referring to? Duchovny always vied for more Skinner screen time (on behalf of Mitch Pileggi), but he did that from season three to season eight, and it's in seasons eight and nine that Skinner actually became a principal character. I think it's a shaky bit of "trivia" at the least.
  • The town from "Humbug" exists. Who cares?
  • Ironically, Duchovny doesn't believe in aliens and Anderson does. It needs a cite in any case, but I think this is based in a very old interview. Overall it smacks of a cheeky magazine headline (which is where it originated), and I don't think it's actually true.
  • Morgan and Wong started the monologues, which became a big part of all the later seasons. True, and an interesting bit of trivia. But maybe it belongs in the "Seasons 1-3"/Morgan & Wong section.
  • Mark Snow fell asleep on his keyboard and created the echo. Not according to commentary *I've* heard. It would need a cite.

Okay, that's about it. If you disagree, feel free to discuss it with me! If I don't hear anything, then I'll delete them/move them again, until asked to do otherwise.

--Frey 21:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"This isn't exactly trivia" <-- since you raise the issue, can you provide an exact definition of "trivia" that we can apply? --JWSchmidt 00:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but to start, I think we could exclude facts that are revealed within the show itself. For items that we deem significant, we could sort them into the actual text of the article - ex. "Mulder eats sunflower seeds, a habit that he inherited from his father" would do better in the "Personality" section than the "Trivia" section of Mulder's article. --Frey 04:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a Wikipedia article on Trivia that might be useful. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I remember the Duchonvy-Anderson alien reversal, it was indeed in a magazine article, I believe. In Scully X-Posed (1997, ISBN 0761511113), it mentions that Scully "remained quite closed to intuition and the paranormal, while Gillian had confidence in both.". Don't have time to find the corresponding quote for Duchovny, but his should be easier. -- nae'blis 02:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! I think the distinction could still be made between intuition/paranormal and belief in aliens. --Frey 04:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the Mark Snow creating the x-files theme, it's mentioned in one of the FX:Behind the Truth segments from one of the first three seasons. I think he just said his elbow slipped. I can't remember exactly.Muldernscully 18:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I remember! We can find a cite, I'm sure... --Frey 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked my season 1 DVD the other day. It is on XF:Behind the Truth segment called 'Theme'. Mark Snow said that he had gone through several revisions, but CC felt that something was not quite right. Now paraphrasing Snow, "So Chris literally walks out of the room and I did this, (shows him placing his hand and forearm on keyboard *music plays*. I put my hand down on the keyboard and this sound was in the keyboard. And that was it." Muldernscully 19:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work on that. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Found a secondary reference to a tv guide interview about the mulder/scully belief reversal here. Can't find anything about Final Destination (though if nothing can be found, it should be removed from that film's article, as well), and I'm betting the 'fox' thing is just speculation. --InShaneee 14:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

re: the trivia section having {{toomuchtrivia}} on it. Most of the crap was long since removed. you do realize most of the stuff there IS notable? I looked through this talk page and added some of the trivia that was mentioned and no one ever bothered to add, which people might actually care about (e.g. Mulder/Scully believer/nonbeliever, William B Davis and herbal cigs).
As it stands I think the only potentially worthless trivia there is about the fictional brand names of the show, but the fact they were later used in Buffy and CSI makes it kinda interesting. Anyway if someone deletes that one, be sure to add a mention of Morleys to the CSM trivia item.
Once we get a citation for the thing about Carter originally planning five seasons and then a film series (I don't remember where I read it, but I did read it somewhere), that could be moved up into the body text, a couple of the others maybe. but the text of the rest of the body article is long enough as is.
If the policy is to have no trivia section here at all that's one thing. but there has been for a long time. the current one has more notability than the old version. there are a few types of things that would just distract from the main focus of the sections were they to be added in. I have seen this done in big articles by well meaning editors and it makes the article read poorly, then eventually the notable but random information is removed again and placed where it belongs, in a trivia section. 172.148.185.131 01:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. But there has always been a trivia section here, no one proposed deleting the whole thing. If that's what the high ranking editors' rules say, we should do that. However a rule that says "avoid trivia sections in articles" doesn't imply anything about what should be in a trivia section if one does exist, and it's also a weasel word in the rule itself ("avoid") as everyone knows there are trivia sections all over Wikipedia including in featured articles. There's not a way to integrate every single NOTABLE trivia item into the main article text. It either ends up disorganized with stuff where it doesn't belong, or you have to create extra sections, which in the end just fills the pages with more junk. Not talking about this article, just in general, cause I've seen it happen.
Ok so some of the things in the old X-Files trivia section were boring and irrelevant, that's why they aren't there anymore. I'm gonna try to integrate a couple of items from the current one into the main article later today or tomorrow, though, when I find the sources. 172.148.185.131 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Gibson?

What's with the kid, "Gibson"? He's obviously psychic and seems to be a recurring character, so I thought I'd find an explanation if I came to Wikipedia. Maybe someone familiar with the show could flesh out the guest cast a bit more...? Cribcage 04:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, good idea. We're still missing a bunch of important mytharc characters. I just created a page for him - Gibson Praise. --Frey 22:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fandom needs a mention

I find it hard to believe that this article makes almost no mention of the fandom phenomenon. While it's commonplace for shows to have large online communities these days, complete with shippers of all varieties, The X-Files was surely one of the first (the first?) cross-over hit (Star Trek probably has true first place) to really run with usenet (no mention of ATXF and ATXC?! :o) and develop such a thriving fan community, especially wrt fan fiction. I mean you just don't see things like OBSSE with other shows... compare to Friends or Ally McBeal or... the difference is insane. People were so into it. And Chris Carter & the writers really fed off it. Man, it was only 10-15 years ago! Anyone else here with me? :/ --pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: the major comparison would of course be BtVS, but X-files came first. :P

These references would probably be useful: "DDEB, GATB, MPPB, and Ratboy: The X-Files’ Media Fandom, Online and Off" in Deny All Knowledge: Reading The X-Files (a review is here); "YOUR SISTER IN ST. SCULLY': An Electronic Community of Female Fans of The X-Files" in the Journal of Popular Film and Television Fall 2001. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it deserves mention. There was a section that had a short list of fan terms that was removed by an anonymous user. See this for the edit. We can put it back in and turn it into paragraphs if we use those books you listed as a basis. Do you want to work on that, pfctdayelise? - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a list of fan acronyms is a good idea (there are dozens if not hundreds, for a start). I mean some discussion of the influence the online fan community had in the show's development and ongoing existence. I believe there was a lot more intense relationship between fans and the show's creators than most shows ever dream of. But I don't have access to the resources I mentioned. My library's catalogue sucks. :P pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that a list of terms/acroynms was a good idea (I don't like lists in general). I was merely showing that the page did at least have some mention of the fans at one point. I thought the information might be a useful starting point. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 17:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hyphen?

Where did the hyphen come from? Imdb.com lists the show as "The X Files" and the screen cap from the title screen as depicted on the Wikipedia page does not show a hyphen. In my opinion, for what it's worth, the page should be redirected to "The X Files". 66.184.16.58 17:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh. On the other hand, Foxhome.com lists it with the hyphen. I think the title's unusual font/design is the reason it doesn't seem to include the hyphen, but common usage and parent company usage seem to support it. Obviously we can't put the X in a circle, like the logo. Good eye, though. -- nae'blis 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Fire connection

In the season one episode “fire”, is the fire casting entity human or alien? If he is alien, that means he was a member of the resistance that could control fire. I’m not sure if it is really that important, but I think there may be a connection. (Forgive me if I’m totally off, I’ve only just gotten to season 8.) ~PhantomBPR

As I recall he was just a psychologically unbalanced pryokinetic. Though in retrospect with some planing he could have been an important Mytharc figure, but "Fire" was just a monster-of-the-week episode.

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 03:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Theme

WOULD ONE CONSIDER X-FILES TO HAVE USED THE SAME INTRODUCTION THEME AND/OR INTRODUCTION SEQUENCE FOR THE LONGEST IN ITS ENTIRE RUN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.35.126 (talkcontribs)

  • The Simpsons have been using the same theme for almost twice as many seasons. In fact, that title sequence has remained unchanged, whereas The X-Files sequence had to be changed to accomdate actors joining or leavng the show. -- Kicking222 20:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons title sequence is different every week. Bart is always writing something different on the chalkboard and the end sequence of the family plopping down on the sofa is different a lot. The X-Files, however, did not alter a single bit for 7 seasons. I have no idea if that is any kind of record. Shows like Bonanza or Gunsmoke that ran for 20 seasons, could conceivably have had static credit sequences. Muldernscully 15:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

    • It wasn't entirely static though - the text at the end usually said 'The Truth is Out There' but for certain episodes it changed to something else, if you remember. Xzamuel 19:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not true

"At the time of its final episode, it was the longest running sci-fi show in American television history" - Not true, how about Doctor Who? At that time it 3 times more episodes. Please reference.

...Doctor Who is a british show... --InShaneee 01:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh.. right.. Michaelas10 07:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

X-Files Mythology DVD sets?

This article does not mention the X-Files Mythology DVD sets, such as this. Perhaps this should go in the DVD section. Should it? BartonM 13:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that would be a valuable addition. --Rob DiLLy 23:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added the Mythology sets. It could be improved by creating a table (like the full season sets) and adding DVD box set cover art. BartonM 20:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review.

Attention all X-Files editors. Please check out the peer review of this article at Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_X-Files. Let's work on the things that are brought up there. I've archived the automated review on my user subpage. Please check it out there and cross things out as you work on them. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 18:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

X-Files Vortex Image

If anyone has the first season of The X-Files on DVD, they can take a screencap and upload it over the leaf vortex image, putting in proper image info of course. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 05:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Though I believe it does now have sufficient info. --InShaneee 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't notice that had happened. Awesome work InShaneee. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 17:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Simply not true

"The show, perhaps to add to the mystique, never displayed episode titles on screen. It was one of the first TV series whose fans disseminated information such as this strictly via the Internet."

At the very beginning of the article but its not true. I recorded every episode of the first two seasons and got all the episode titles from TV Guide. A mcmurray 07:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Was vs. Is

What is the big deal of the first line of the article where it says, "The X-Files is/was an ..."? One person writes "is" and the next person comes along and changes it to "was". Is there a way we can resolve this revolving problem? Do the Wikipedia admins have a preference on how to refer to television shows that are no longer in production? The X-Files is still shown in syndication on various networks, but is not making new episodes. Therefore, it's kind of like a dead person whom you refer to in a past tense. I don't think using "was" diminishes the X-Files. What do other defunct televison series use? I personally don't mind either "is" or "was". I just want this constant switching back and forth between tenses to stop. Muldernscully 17:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on the flip-flopping. I have usually seen the tense change from present- to past-tense when production on the series ends. For example, Sons & Daughters (US TV series) uses "was". Happy Days uses "was". However, Frasier uses "is" once and then immediately switches to past tense; same with Arrested Development. If it were up to me, though, I'd change to "was" for anything that is no longer being produced; it just seems proper. I can't find a guideline right now, but there's probably one out there.- (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's a guideline, but I believe that the preferred method is to use "is". The X-Files is a television show in the same way that Ulysses is a novel and Casablanca is a film. We don't say "Casablanca was a film", simply because it's no longer in cinemas. What's past tense about The X-Files is its original broadcast, not its nature as a TV show.--Nalvage 20:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Nalvage.Muldernscully 15:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but remember that you're talking about a novel and a film, which are only ever "done" once. Perhaps your explanation makes more sense today than it would, say, 10 or 20 years ago when there weren't DVD releases for every series. I don't know, but when a TV show goes off the air, I think of it differently, as though it's "over" and needs to be looked back upon. But I'm sitting here arguing over the philosophy of "Was vs. Is" ... funny. Anyway, unless there's a policy to quote, we should probably leave it as it is. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Creative works "are" (not "were") unless they have been lost or destroyed. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

CFD notice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Recurring actors

I don't mean the supporting characters, but rather the number of extras that appeared in the early seasons (I think up until about 4?) playing different characters. Usually in speaking parts. Ones that spring to mind are the Native American woman who plays the Werewolf guy's sister in one episode, and the black-haired woman who features heavily in the episode with the Quaker-like folks. These actresses played a number of other minor but speaking parts in these early seasons, and I'm sure there were others too I noticed while watching it. Does anyone have any more info? Xzamuel 19:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Nitpicker's Guide for X-Philes by Phil Farrand has a number of these listed. To be honest, I'm not sure that they're worth mentioning. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 01:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Images

I counted 29 images on this page. Is that necessary? Feels like overkill to me. Plus, I believe that there might be a limit for screenshots on an article. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 19:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's overkill. Aesthetically I think they are pretty well spaced out, the issue may be the amount of text, which the images are there to balance (as in "serious" articles like Khazars, Jerusalem, whatever- the amount of images is really no different, and virtually no one wants to read a pop culture article that looks like it's all text). Can the sections be spun off into articles on each "period"? See, they do not just duplicate the List of X-Files episodes, because they have a combination of background information on the making of the show at various periods, and information on the general sort of plots that were going on in the episodes and seasons and commercial and critical response. I went to a lot of effort to make it nothing like a summary of an episode guide and have sources for all of it. I suppose there could be a brief summary of this material for each period on this main X-Files page, with a separate article on the periods? But I don't know about the policy on that.
It's true the page takes ages to load. BUT this is a NINE-year show, with an ongoing story (sort of), a huge attention to production values behind the scenes, and arguably one of the first and largest Internet fan bases, which gives a lot to cover.. not like this version is perfect, but the previous version of the article while technically "good", was not exactly informative, nor did it have any sources or links where people could find more details. If someone wants to go to the effort to summarize all the new material much more briefly and spin off side articles in which the greater details and images could possibly reside, I'd be more than fine with that. I think it's more the size of text than images that would be a matter of controversy.
As for copyrights, there are also some stupid wiki rules about screenshots that got most of them removed even from the List of X-Files episodes article where they explicitly represented particular episodes (someone who obviously was unfamiliar with the show removed ones they felt didn't directly apply to the episodes, but the choices were completely random).
Anyway, the captions on the pictures clearly put them in context of relevance to the show. That was the point of the captions. If you just said "Flukeman from The Host" or "A screenshot from One Breath", then I think it can be argued they are in violation. The captions and pictures are designed so someone can just skim through the article in 2 minutes only looking at them and get a decent idea where the show was going over the years! 172.148.185.131 00:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest a page titled something like History of The X-Files (as opposed to a number of separate pages). This article would have a short summary with a link to the main history article. I think that it's important for people to be able to see the Influence and Legacy sections without hunting so that they can see the importance of the show. Those sections obviously need work as well. The article as it is seems written for fans of the show or those with an interest in TV production. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 18:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If it's important that readers see those sections first, then maybe those should be placed before the history section? (after they are improved a bit, of course)
ahem.. (sorry) HERE IS MY JUSTIFICATION for re-writing this article. "The article as it is seems written for fans of the show or those with an interest in TV production." well, um, who is the audience supposed to be? it shouldn't have original research/subjective ideas about the show (I don't notice that much) but obviously it's got to be ENCYCLOPEDIC, have information, it's written for people who want information on the show. those people will mostly be fans or people who are unaware or critics who have seen it and don't like it. this article would provide information to any of those groups.
there is "dry" technical information mentioning the more notable writers, directors, etc., along with more subjective but sourced information on the notability of various episodes and seasons and creative staff for various reasons, such as plot development, perceived importance by general viewing public (source: nielsen ratings), fans (cited reviews), critics (awards), and the people who created the episodes (interviews).
Now if all "history" was, was a recap of the progress of the story and mythology as seen by fans of the show and the show's creators, then that would actually be more fannish, I think (originally the section was called Plot and mythology, I renamed it history to include both plot and production history as they are linked). To just have the section say basically, "Chris Carter created The X-Files in 1993..." then go on to list the major plot developments and never mention anything else behind the scenes, that's not encyclopedic, that's something that fan webpages and reviews already do, just reporting on the show from within its own fictional universe. Where in such an article do you have a chance to mention a huge actor's contract dispute that appeared on front pages, or for that matter, some of the writers and directors who created the best loved episodes.
The article shouldn't be geared just toward people with an interest in TV production who want to know how much Duchovny got paid, when the ratings tanked or who directed the famous episodes, NOR should it just toward fans who only care when Deep Throat died, which episode Mulder and Scully kissed in and when it was revealed the truth about Samantha, but BOTH and a broader audience than either of those. that's why all the issues are covered there.
someone had already added something about Morgan and Wong (two early writers on the show, if you didn't read the article) to what was essentially a three paragraph plot summary of the whole series. well ok, they are very important behind the scenes people, but adding them to the plot summary there, that didn't really fit. I agreed with that person they should be mentioned, but it needs to be in context. if they're there, and John Bartley's there, and Chris Carter's there, some other stuff should be there too. articles will usually have detail added by "fans" (yes, I watch(ed) The X-Files) but the fact of being detailed does not in itself mean they are biased. as I said, I think an article that went through the esoteric plot developments of the mythology would be more fannish- if someone can't comprehend the article without having seen the show, that is not something that belongs on wiki, and that's not the case with this article.
someone who had never seen the show and maybe has no intention of doing so would still get a representative idea of it from the article, that is the point. it was inevitable people would add specifics to that old pitifully underdeveloped version of the page. Now it's probably way overdeveloped (this is why Wiki could use "macro" and "micropedias"- not that the quality of writing is up to Britannica or anything). I don't mind the idea at all about spinning off the sections. But I think if that were to happen, the "history of" articles would go through deletion wouldn't they? and then it'd be back where we started on this one, no sources, a tiny paragraph summarizing what happened in a fictional universe with added POV pushing of two particular writers as being brilliant.
Remember these X-Files writers and directors, most are not wiki-notable by themselves, and don't have articles (for example, there is no article on Vince Gilligan, and maybe there shouldn't be if his prime contribution was on one show, but he is still very famous as a writer for this show). I also think the specific episode pages may go through deletion at some point- they may decide wiki isn't a good repository for that level of specifics, specific plots and specific cast and crew of each TV episode of each TV show, what's the point when you have imdb and countless other places.
So the specific plots of episodes are not covered in this article really, just general themes if they tie together with notable facts, it's not a specific run through of what happened when at all. Even though it says "spoilers" on top, due to sort of giving away the progress of each season, usually avoided giving away anything in explicit terms (e.g. one could read the article and barely get a hint that Mulder or Scully family members had been killed and if so which ones, that Deep Throat and X had died, that CSM had died, that CSM was once implicated to be Mulder's father, that Skinner "sold his soul" for a time, what exactly "Colonization" means, what a "super soldier" is, all these kinds of things- which are largely not proper fodder for Wikipedia, at least not the main article on the show).
The idea was to present a notable chronological overview of nine years of the show, which amounts to briefly mentioning a majority of episodes of some seasons, and only a smaller portion of others, from both multiple sides. My personal opinions did not really come into what I mentioned. For the first four seasons, the most "notable" episodes had already been selected for us by the show's creators, in that they were included on official VHS releases before the full season DVDs. Adding to that, certain episodes notable for ongoing plot, guest actors, unique themes, response (notably great or horrible, from fans or in nielsen ratings), etc., that explains what is mentioned and what isn't.
the tendency with an article like this would just be to say "created by chris carter" and leave it at that and not bother mentioning other names in the article. but TV doesnt work like that, it's not an "auteur" form, neither Chris Carter, nor any given writer/producer/whatever, nor the Fox network, is the "auteur" of a given episode. it's collaborative between (very importantly) commercial expectations and a large group of people working to get the show on the air. so reporting on the commercial response to the show (a bit of the "fan" response as well) and the realities behind the making of it, is as important, or more important than rehashing the plots. By important I mean encylopedic. 172.165.51.199 05:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I feel like you're arguing with me for no reason. So perhaps I should reword what I said. The structure/organization of the article heavily favors the History section. I think people should be able to read the entire article in one sitting (see Article_length#Readability_issues). At this point, I scroll through the page, note its length and think "no thanks." Many people won't make it to the part of the article where it mentions the importance of the show. You can move that section up but that only solves half of the problem. The article is 120 kilobytes long when the recommendation in 32 KB. As for splitting the article up, see Wikipedia:Summary_style#Size.

In response to "two early writers on the show, if you didn't read the article," I helped write the article. A number of us improved it to GA status. It wasn't Featured material, but it was a drastic improvement. I'm not trying to champion myself, but I do feel the need to defend myself from insinuations of my ignorance. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 17:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Zepheus. You seem to have taken good care of the page, it's just I had no idea how familiar you were with the subject of the page, since some editors prefer to work on stuff they are not at all a "fan" of. Some editors focus on trying to make sure a page doesn't do anything wrong, which was how the old version got to "good". However it had no sources, and barely any information about the show itself, how it was made, who made it, what was in it, if it changed over 9 years, who watched it and what if any impact it had, etc. So at least as far as the history section, I saw some room for improvement.
What should happen then, is you or whoever is in charge or all of us should come up with the absolute essential points that should be addressed on this page and reduce out everything but a tiny summary of those. Maybe the best solution would be reverting it completely back to the summaries that existed, and then just removing mention of Morgan and Wong, Chris Carter, anyone else from that, so that no specific behind the scenes people or events, and no specific episodes are mentioned. You know, it can be a summary of the show's strict plot that someone can read in 30 seconds, though I'm not sure the point of that. And then put all the current text in the "History of the X-Files" proposed article (which will no doubt quickly get deleted, but that's ok).
"Many people won't make it to the part of the article where it mentions the importance of the show."
Probably true, but for that matter, there is a table of contents that would instantly link them.
Also, even though you are totally right on the length issue so in retrospect I shouldn't have made any of these "improvements" (which took a ****load of time), each of the history sections does have a "spoiler" warning over the top, so I have to think a lot of visitors to the page may want to avoid reading those sections however much or little is in them.
Length should really be an issue more for the technical aspect/page size, not because it might put someone off. If I go to an article on Existentialism or History of China or Quantum Theory or The Bible, I don't want it to take ages to load on my computer, but I am not going to complain that there is an overwhelming amount of information there to absorb, which I probably won't be able to read in one sitting if I have no basic familiarity with the topic already. if I want to know about the particular topic, that's my problem, not the article's. wikipedia should try to present a comprehensive encyclopedic approach to pop culture topics, as well as more "serious" ones.
does anyone know the policy on spinning off something like "History of The X-Files"? I think it would be treated from the concept as if it was a fan type of thing, and those get deleted. the fact that it was very highly sourced and dealt with factual material that ideally, could be in the main article, might not matter, because highly placed editors would not see a need for a separate article just on this "history". it's not quite like spinning off "Early History of Iran During the XXXXX period", which would always be treated as a legitimate article.
But anyway, you are right. If it goes on its own page, let's also remove the spoiler warnings, as that would indicate it was just a recap of the plot and the text really does not reveal many plot specifics and is more about overall history. Assuming someone has sought out an article called "History of The X-Files", they should basically be safe reading it all, because the only explicitly stated "surprises" (Krycek is working for the bad people, Scully is abducted, Scully gets cancer, their relationship gets closer over the show, Mulder is abducted, Scully has a baby) are known already by most people who never saw the show.
Sorry if I caused offense. :( 172.165.51.199 02:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
No offense taken. I can see that you're obviously working hard, and you've made a lot of valuable edits. I just want to make sure that the article stays a quality article (or even help it become featured). I think that, as it is now, FA reviewers would say it was overlong. I actually don't think myself that it would be at risk of being deleted. If deletion did turn out to be the case, we can always copy the text back into the original article. I'm not sure if you read this, but I think it's helpful: Wikipedia:Summary_style#Rationale. Also, WP:Bold. Also, thank you for writing your thoughts in such an intelligent and friendly manner. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 00:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is much too long (121K at the moment). Several sections should be removed and summarized here. Avt tor 21:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver image issues

Someone continues to remove the following from the page (usually positioned above the second to last paragraph in Seasons 3-5 section)

"The End" was the last episode to be filmed in rainy Vancouver, British Columbia (pictured), closing season 5. The show produced 117 episodes in Canada before moving to Los Angeles in its sixth season.

I may be wrong here but I think the removers are not getting it. First of all the image is GNU licensed/"free", as it was taken by another Wikipedian. This means that even if it WASN'T a good image or relevant to the content of the page, it would still be perfectly legal to use it, unlike the vast majority of images whose legality is nebulous (although this is a fact of pop culture articles. even if we used far less images as many have suggested to address this issue and also cut down page size, we would still be in some technical violation just for having any screenshots to identify Mulder and Scully at all).

Anyway, there are no legal issues surrounding the particular Image:Stanley_Park_1999_Rain.jpg, as it is not a screenshot from the show (although they did film in Stanley Park on occasion). The only reason to remove the Vancouver image is if it's not relevant.

I think it is VERY relevant.

Even with all the pretty, tiny, screenshots littering the page, there is no image which clearly identifies the "X-Files look" (there is an image from One Breath, but this is an unusual surreal landscape). This is of course not necessary, but many episodes shot over the first five years from the pilot on, did have that foggy, rainy look. There are even quotes from Chris Carter to the effect that Vancouver was the "main character" in the show. Even in the years since they relocated to LA, Carter made such statements, regretting the move because he was so enamored of the aesthetic value of Vancouver as a background for this particular show. In the absence of any "free" image identifying an X-Files episode that looks "distinctively Vancouver", this photo shows what a typical outdoor daytime X-Files scene from this era might look like. No, I am not from Vancouver. In fact, I have never even been to Canada. But when I first saw this image, it looked to me like The X-Files. That's what I mean.

I also noticed this is currently the main image in the Climate of Vancouver article. That is what that section is explicitly talking about- there was large controversy over Duchovny's supposed hatred of the Vancouver climate, as a reason the show left Canada at that time; in addition, the next section explains how the new climate in LA was utilized in different ways by the producers, creating a new, lighter tone to the show. Everyone knows what southern California looks like. This picture quickly summarizes that Vancouver look for someone who doesn't read the text.

If the image itself is not enough, the image caption clearly states its relevance to The X-Files (and also provides information not specified in the article text, so by deleting the image that is also deleted). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.162.21.82 (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

suggestions on X-Files article(s)

maybe we should have one of those .ogg sound clips, of mark snow's theme song as it is one of the most recognizeable aspects of the show (though I can't imagine many people reading this article wouldn't already have heard it).

and redirects: Typing "Frohike" should redirect automatically to Melvin Frohike. "Krycek" should redirect automatically to Alex Krycek. "Langly" (note spelling) should redirect to Richard Langly. There is apparently no one else notable with these names. Also, the first names of the Lone Gunmen were not even invented until several seasons into The X-Files, they usually went by last names only. 172.148.185.131 00:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Science fantasy

Science fantasy huh? Umm. OK, I guess? Watched the whole run of the show, never referred to it or heard it referred to as science fantasy.A mcmurray (talkcontribs) 19:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion of XF related wiki articles

Seems like there should be articles on:

  • Vince Gilligan (one of the most famous XF writers/producers, also wrote screenplays of several movies)
  • Characters who are members of Scully's family, i.e. Margaret, Bill, Melissa (Mulder's major family members all have their own articles)

"Chronology" in infobox

This is very confusing. Is this a new feature of TV show infoboxes? It doesn't work to list Millennium there. As described in the later section, and linked in The X-Files NAV box at the bottom, it is "related", not only are they both created by Carter and produced by Ten Thirteen, meaning there's a lot of overlap of fans, there was even a crossover episode and occasional in-jokes/allusions between the shows, which is mentioned in the appropriate section of this article. But fundamentally they don't appear to occur in the same universe, except for these few crossover episodes, which doesn't merit it being in the infobox at the top. Besides that, someone looking at the infobox would have the idea the relation between the shows is "chronological" like the relation between All in the Family and Archie Bunker's Place, and that's completely untrue. Lone Gunmen on the other hand, doesn't have complete continuity with The X-Files and has a different focus from what I've heard, but is definitely a spinoff of The X-Files.

No one answered, so I removed Millennium from there. Its connections with The X-Files are covered in the section on Relation to other Ten Thirteen Productions, and it's still linked from the X-Files navbox template, but the connections are too minor to warrant a place at the top of the page. It would be misleading to people who are not familiar with the show, implying it's an X-Files spinoff like The Lone Gunmen (especially as the section is titled "chronology"). 172.144.187.160 04:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Голосування

На вибрану --Miwanya 13:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Season Six "Triangle"

I believe the correct name of the ship used in the episode "Triangle" is RMS Queen Mary, not HMS.

The RMS is located in Long Beach, CA, and the RMS Queen Mary article references the episode being shot there.

Johncorle 18:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Comment I moved this to the talk page, it's been tagged for a while, whatever can be integrated should be. Quadzilla99 13:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • While Mulder believes in extraterrestrial life, and Scully does not (until season 6), the opposite is true of David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson (i.e. Duchovny does not believe EBEs exist,[3] while Anderson does).[4][5] She says, "It's more likely than not that there are life forms—probably more intelligent than we are—out there."[6]
  • Creator Chris Carter's birthday is October 13, thus the frequent references to the number 1013 on the show and the reason Fox Mulder's birthday is also October 13. It is also the name of Carter's production company, Ten Thirteen Productions. In the episode "Triangle," written and directed by Carter, the uninterrupted take during the second act (Scully in the halls of the FBI building) runs exactly 10 minutes and 13 seconds.[8] The number 1121, and especially the time 11:21 PM, also appears regularly on The X-Files, particularly in the early seasons. This is a reference by Chris Carter to his wife Dori's birthday, November 21.
  • Several characters and places in The X-Files have been named after cast and crew members and relatives. Gillian Anderson's daughter Piper, whose birth necessitated Scully's abduction in the second season, was the namesake for the third season episode "Piper Maru". The foul-mouthed Detective Manners in "Jose Chung's 'From Outer Space'" was named for director Kim Manners,[9] who directed the most episodes of any X-Files director, 52 (but not including that one). Rob Bowman, the second most prolific director, inspired the name of a character in "Kitsunegari", a sequel to the third season episode "Pusher" which he directed.
  • The role of John Doggett almost went to cult star Bruce Campbell,[10] but he was ruled out for having already appeared on an X-Files episode—season 6's "Terms of Endearment"—as another character. Robert Patrick was ultimately cast in the role. However, several actors have played multiple minor roles in the show throughout different periods, such as Chris Owens and Terry O'Quinn. Local Vancouver actors were frequently seen reappearing in early seasons.[11]
  • Tom Braidwood, who plays Frohike of The Lone Gunmen, was First Assistant Director (Second Unit) on The X-Files from 1993 to 1999. During shooting for the first season episode "E.B.E.", producers and writers were struggling to cast the part (then considered a one-off) when Braidwood emerged from a bathroom and they realized he fit the role.[12] Frohike was originally going to be killed in the 1996 episode "Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man" before Carter nixed the idea, but the scene was actually shot by director James Wong.[13] The character lasted until 2002, after Braidwood's retirement from directing.
  • The show was not endorsed by the FBI and was not allowed to use an official FBI shield. However, The X-Files was acknowledged by the bureau early in its run when Duchovny and Anderson were invited to the Washington, D.C. headquarters and the training facility in Quantico for advice on proper firearm use (although the on-screen agents rarely fired their weapons). Carter said, "The FBI has given us information about protocol and procedure. That's been the extent of the bureau's cooperation. We've gone to great lengths not to paint the FBI as bad guys, but as tools of some higher level of government that orders Scully and Mulder off sensitive cases for whatever reasons."[14] According to some reports, job applications to the FBI surged during the '90s as a result of The X-Files and other films and TV shows, despite the fact that the depiction of paranormal investigators was fictional.
  • Episodes written by Darin Morgan contained numerous in-jokes and references to previous episodes of The X-Files, to cast and crew members, and to other works and artists ranging from Roky Erickson to Nabokov's Pale Fire (see article). The name of the title character in "Jose Chung's 'From Outer Space'" originated in a practical joke by the X-Files writing staff, where writers would impersonate a nonexistent man called Jose Chung who called the production offices to inquire about an unsolicited script he had submitted, always being turned away,[9] as it was a policy of The X-Files not to accept story submissions from outside.[15] The name of Peter Boyle's title character in "Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose" is an homage to a silent movie screenwriter and director Clyde Bruckman, who worked on famous films of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd. The latter was Morgan's main influence.[16] However, the town of sideshow "freaks" where Morgan set his episode "Humbug", actually exists (Gibsonton, Florida).
  • This was the first show to reach the top 20 in the FOX network's history.[citation needed]


We're going to have a really hard time maintaining any kind of organized and well written article if we try to intergrate ANY of that into the body text of The X-Files. The trivia section was already greatly reduced and the parts that were relevant to a specific section were put in those sections.
But where can you really put, i.e. the thing about X-Files brand names, or Duchovny and Anderson's beliefs reversing their on-screen characters. They aren't directly relevant to one section, yet they aren't things you can start a new article on, or put in any other article, and they're good and well referenced trivia items about the show in general (the Darin Morgan thing perhaps a bit much, as it's covered in his own article and he's mentioned plenty in the article). Kinda shows the limits of this new Wikipedia policy. I understand it was necessary because trivia sections by definition can easily get out of hand or become original research and POV. However it's a shame for some of these items to be removed. What happens then is that inevitably someone will add them places they don't belong just to get them in there, and the whole article then suffers. Unless perhaps the more interesting ones could be footnoted from a section where they had tangential relevance? (See intro of Jerusalem article for an example of this). I don't see why trivia sections should be singled out, anyway. The "in pop culture" sections also attract so much crap from people who just want to post the latest one liner in Family Guy, which is also irrelevant TRIVIA. 172.165.143.225 07:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
See WP:TRIV comment on the talk page there. It's an official policy. Quadzilla99 07:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Did I challenge the fact that it's a policy? I didn't even say it's a stupid policy, although it probably is for this article. I'm mostly suggesting that no one try to incorporate these trivia items into the article because they plainly would not fit anywhere but a trivia section. They are lost forever. Until this "official policy" changes- which it inevitably will, since it's not official to begin with. 172.165.143.225 08:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't shoot the messenger WP:TRIV is part of the MoS and it says right on top of the page that's it a guideline, You could always go here and discuss it. Quadzilla99 13:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Again you miss the point. I'm not "shooting the messenger" and it's not like I was unaware of the policy until you pointed it out. I'm trying to say, to whoever reads this, PLEASE DO NOT HAPHAZARDLY DUMP THIS TRIVIA BACK INTO THE BODY TEXT OF THE ARTICLE, because ALMOST NONE of it (with the possible exception of the Doggett item) would fit. It would be better if there were still room in Wikipedia for small, well maintained trivia sections, but as there apparently is not, it is a better idea to let most of these items go unread, than to put them in the article in places they don't belong. 172.148.117.110 23:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's just chalk it up to a misunderstanding. Sorry if I wasn't clearer. Quadzilla99 01:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure. And I did manage to integrate a few of the items. I'm deleting them from the listing on this page as they're now back in the main text.
For future reference, anyone who removes any text from the article needs to be sure they are not removing citations that have a "ref name" tag in them, which may be used in other parts of the page. If you want to remove text with those, search the rest of the page and if you find the same tag, transfer the details of the citation there so it's not lost (several were lost in the removal of the trivia, that I had to go back and add to the other sections). Many articles have a citation format where the information is repeated every time the citation comes up, but this does not (yet) so be more careful. 172.148.117.110 02:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

X-Files: From US, Canada or both?

Okay. This issue has been going on in a slow motion edit war a long time. In the info box at the top, do we identify The X-Files as an American show, or an American AND also (secondarily) Canadian show? And in the intro sentence, do we have to characterize the show as being from a particular country? Obviously if we chose one country, it would have to be the United States, but the issue is more complicated than it seems.

I'm going to lay out the points I see on each side, and hopefully (please please) some other people will come on this page for once and say what they think on this issue. Maybe someone with more Wiki-knowledge can help make this decision from the facts below, even if that person has never watched the show.

For US only in infobox:

  • Show was financed by Twentieth Century Fox, an multinational company based in the US, and was made to be shown on the US FOX network. It was designed for US television, reflected in everything from the censorship standards imposed on it, to the format for where to put commercial breaks.
  • Show was produced by Ten Thirteen Productions, an American company (based in Los Angeles through all 9 years of the show, even when Chris Carter had several shows for Ten Thirteen filming up in Canada). Carter is American.
  • The main stars of the show were American actors.
  • The main producers, directors and writers were Americans, or at least American-born and moved to Canada in order to work on American TV that filmed there (The X-Files was not the only one, although it wasn't anywhere near as common at the time as it is now), and the writing staff worked out of LA, having to fly up to Vancouver frequently. Some of the main behind the scenes crew members, like the composer Mark Snow, were also American and worked out of LA all 9 years.
  • The show is almost always set in the US. The plot revolves around goings on throughout the country, and the US government.
  • The show was filmed in the US for its final four seasons, almost half the run of nine.
  • The X-Files movie was filmed in the US (although this isn't directly relevant since the article is about the show).

For US and also Canada in infobox:

  • The show was filmed in Canada for more than half the run, 5 out of 9 years. Location filming in the US was never done, except for a few exterior shots without the actors, i.e. the FBI building. Even for episodes set in iconic American locations, local equivalents were found.
  • With the exception of the leading stars (Anderson, Duchovny, Mitch Pileggi) and some guest stars flown up from America, most of the actors used in the show during the majority of the run were Canadian. Some of them attained fame playing major secondary characters in the show who were supposed to be American, such as William B Davis who played the Cigarette Smoking Man, Nick Lea who played Alex Krycek, and Chris Owens who played several roles including Spender. These Canadian actors continued their large role in the show when it moved to the US.
  • The first five years filmed in Vancouver are when the show peaked in ratings and popularity and also received the bulk of its critical recognition. The show remained popular afterward, although ratings and reviews declined; for example, viewership in the final season were down to even lower than in the first season, and the show was not receiving many awards or positive reviews from critics in its late period either. Whatever one may prefer as a viewer, the show's image and influence was defined far more by its first five years than the latter four. The American producers of the show said as much themselves. Chris Carter did not want to move filming out of Vancouver and said the look of the city was "the main character" in the show.
  • Although the production company and writers were based in LA all through, for the first five years the technical crew was based in Canada with the filming. Some of the crew members may have been American born, but most were Canadian. Several of them continued to work on the show after it moved to LA.
  • Even though it was developed for American TV, The X-Files came out in an era when TV had a worldwide reach, so it began airing in markets worldwide within a year. It became even more popular internationally than in the US. However in Canada, unlike other countries, it was probably aired in first-run at the same time as in the US. I don't know about that because I'm not Canadian- I just think this is generally how North American TV deals work.

I have yet to see a specific guideline on how to determine the nationality of a product created by/for a multinational company, with multinational crew and cast. I am not Canadian, in fact I have never been there, but I think until such time as there's a specific policy on how to determine nationality for all TV show articles (or someone makes us here aware of it), I will argue for Canada to be included as a secondary nationality - my preference was for a line break and then  Canada (filming, 1993-1998) - and edit as necessary. If the show was largely filmed in Canada, with Canadian actors in most of the secondary roles, and the look of those locations was considered of key importance, and it aired in Canada at the same time as in the US all through its run, I think we could consider viewers were watching both an American AND a Canadian product, at least for the first five years, regardless of where the money came from. 172.165.143.225 08:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I also want to point out this is a bit different from your typical Hollywood movie which shoots in Toronto for the lower price and pretends it's New York. There's no way such a product can be called Canadian. However, setting up for five years in Canada and transmitting 20 hours of Canadian images a year (especially before this was so routinely done) is more like what was done with the Lord of the Rings films, which one could consider to have a "country of origin" in New Zealand, among others, even though the money was not New Zealand's and neither was most of the cast, or the main intended audience. 172.148.117.110 23:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Length

Subpages should be made, length is getting oppressive. History of X-Files or X-Files seasons 1-3, or even each season could have its own article. Quadzilla99 03:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any chance of spinning out History of The X-Files into its own article?

Potential GA/R

Just a notice, I will be nominating this for Good article review in two weeks if size trimming doesn't begin. Quadzilla99 11:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If work is progressing I'll avoid nominating it. It's currently 146 KB overall, with 89 KB prose. Quadzilla99 10:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flukeman.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Flukeman.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 09:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Donniex2.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Donniex2.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 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 06:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

MORE POP CULTURE

For parodies, I think we could include the "VISITORS FROM DOWN THE STREET" episode from CRUSADER (the BABYLON 5 spinoff). In that episode the human starship crew tries to contact a planet and winds up tangling with a paranoid alien, a red-scaled scientific female alien, and a cigarette-smoking alien who wants to make a deal with them.

The ANDROMEDA episode "PITILESS AS THE SUN" did another sort of reversal by borrowing the X-File concept and casting William B. Davis (the Cigarette Smoking Man actor) in the Mulder role.

CharlesTheBold 00:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Millman, Joyce. "'The X-Files' finds the truth: Its time is past." The New York Times, May 19, 2002. mirrored (the date given is inaccurate)
  2. ^ a b St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture entry on X-Files. [4]
  3. ^ The X-Files FAQ.
  4. ^ Nadine Crenshaw, Scully X-Posed: The Unauthorized Biography of Gillian Anderson (1997, ISBN 0761511113)
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Anderson was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Chanko, Kenneth. "Gillian Is Out There." eDrive, June 1998. [5]
  7. ^ Interview with William B. Davis, 11th October 2005. [6]
  8. ^ Review of Triangle (6.03) [7]
  9. ^ a b X-Files in-jokes list, season 3. [8]
  10. ^ http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2006/07/bruce_campbell_week_the_bruces.html
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference deep was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ IMDB info on Tom Braidwood. [9]
  13. ^ Cinefantastique Interview with James Wong and Glen Morgan, 1997. (part two) [10]
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference cult was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference transcr was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference darin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).