User:Zepheus/xfcleanup

This is the place to go for The X-Files Cleanup Project.

Taskforce Members

Here is a list of the users involved (feel free to add yourself):

1. Zepheus
2. Charles
3. Xfpisher
4. Thingymajig

These are self-appointed. If you are interested in cleaning up a section, please assign it to yourself.

Progress chart

Section	User in charge	Date started	Date complete	To do
Intro	Zepheus	June 7, 2006
Taglines
Fan Terminology	Thingymajig	June 4, 2006
Relationship to other 1013 shows
Cast	Thingymajig	June 4, 2006
Legacy
Influences
Around the world	81.159.11.7	June 3, 2006
Awards	Zepheus	June 2, 2006		cite correlations btwn awards/ratings
History	Xfpisher	June 5, 2005		Add info on other key show contributors
Trivia	Thingymajig	June 4, 2006
Video games
Around the world	Thingymajig	June 4,2006
External links	Zepheus	June 6, 2006	June 7, 2006	Looks pretty good. Will keep an eye on it.

X-Files cleanup.

Leave messages here. Zepheus 05:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am definitely interested in seeing some cleanup on that page. Let me know how I can help. --Charles 15:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made a number of edits to the X-Files page (particularly on the subject of Morgan and Wong's contributions). I most recently tried to comply with a request to provide documentation for some statements I had edited in earlier. I'm not terribly conversant with the finer points of Wikipedia, and I'm sure a lot of my edits are needlessly clumsy and opinionated--but they're accurate, nonetheless. (g)

I'd be more than willing to provide information, and defend the changes I've made, while accepting that some may ultimately have to go. I'd like to help with the cleanup, but again--not very good at the technical side. I have access to a lot of data through my job at a library, including Lexis-Nexis.

And btw, which season got the highest ratings is hardly the same thing as which season is the best. You might as well decide the best movies of all time by looking at the box office data. Popularity is just one element that has to be factored in. I think my most recent edits show that with both fans and critics, it was Morgan and Wong's episodes that won respect for the show, and that led to its eventual mainstream popularity. Season Five is technically the highest-rated season, but it's also the first season where the ratings fell from beginning to end. In every previous season, the ratings were higher at the end than they were at the beginning. The poor quality of the scripts slowly but surely destroyed the momentum, and the movie finished it off. Season Six had a major fall-off in the ratings, as did every subsequent season. Xfpisher 20:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll buy that (regarding the Morgan/Wong question). But I never said that highest ratings equalled best. I'm not taling about Nielsen ratings or even shares either. The guide that I linked to (GEOS) is a listing of ratings by viewers, not a listing of how many people watched the show. I'm not saying it's a perfect guide to popularity, but I was using it as a general gauge. Also, I don't think we need to concern ourselves/Wikipedia with "season is the best," as it's not very encyclopedic (popularity is something very different).

I'm going to check out these edits you made to better understand what you mean. I've also gone ahead and added your name to the list of cleanup crew. Hopefully soon, we can make this page a lot better. - Zepheus 21:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There's definitely room for improvement. Sorry to have misunderstood, but I do think it's worth noting that the show's early popularity (without which its latter popularity could not have occurred, since the show would have died in season one) owes a great deal to Morgan and Wong. In every season one of the Morgan Brothers (Glen or Darin) worked, the ratings rose from beginning to end. In every season they didn't work, the ratings fell from beginning to end. And GEOS ratings are problematic, at best, since more people were watching the show (and going online) during the later seasons, even while the show itself was declining in terms of the ratings and critical/fan respect. The momentum came from the first four seasons, and dissipated over the subsequent five seasons. The early critical respect the show got (unusual for this type of program) can be traced very directly to Morgan and Wong, as well as Darin Morgan (he did win the show's only writing Emmy). However, if the language can be retooled to get rid of the weasel words, that'd be fine. I guess I'm primarily interested in making sure these guys get the credit they deserve, but there's no question the page needs to be cleaned up. Actually, I think it's been cleaned up a number of times in the past--I've seen old edits I've made disappear, then reappear in altered form later on. I'm not sure you can get a completely objective opinion-free article, unless you just have basic production info. A lot of the edits I've made were to try and correct false impressions made by other edits--so I have no problem with my edits going, so long as the edits I was responding to are gone as well. And btw--that X-Files movie--not a financial success. As evidenced by the fact that it opened eight years ago, and there still hasn't been a sequel.

Okay, I see clean-up has commenced (and I've already made a few edits). I think it's a step in the right direction, except for one thing--you just can't talk about The X-Files without mentioning Morgan and Wong. It would be like talking about the original Star Trek without mentioning Gene Coon and Dorothy Fontana. Which I note is actually the case, and that's an atrocity as well. This whole idea of the show "creator" is inherently flawed. TV is a collective medium, and there can be more than one creator. Morgan and Wong created most of the popular supporting characters, hired most of the show's award-winning production talent, and wrote/produced the episodes that gave it early popularity and critical support, without which the show would not have survived more than a season or two. There needs to be a whole section on them, or the article is woefully incomplete. I must also note in passing there there are still a few references to what unspecified groups of people thought about things like Mulder and Scully kissing. How is this not an example of 'weasel words'? It's as much a fact that many people think Morgan and Wong were the true creative minds behind the show as that many wanted Mulder and Scully to make out every week. If you can talk about the Shipper/Noromo debate, you can talk about the Carter/Morgan&Wong debate. Xfpisher 15:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the points you are bringing up. By all means, put your name in the above spot and work to make this better. Make sure to cite sources. It's important to make this legit as opposed to reading like fantalk. - Zepheus 00:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I was writing that from my home computer, so my name didn't show up. Fixed it. I will devote some thought to how a not overly wordy or fanboyish section on Morgan & Wong would look, and get back to you. I agree documentation is important, though it's difficult to completely avoid the subjective when you're talking about a work of fiction.Xfpisher 15:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I edited out some weasal words and biased anti-Chris Carter editorializing from the Morgan and Wong section. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper opinion column for promoting a personal agenda. Chris Lyons (i.e. XFpisher) is sort of a notorious Chris Carter stalker--he spends all his time as "Clyons" on the IMDB message boards obsessively hating on him: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004810/board/threads/ --Bunbury18 18:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you erase factual content purely because you don't like the person who contributed it, that is, by definition, a malicious edit. I certainly agree the article is not an opinion column--and it's not opinion to say that Chris Carter never worked with Rob Bowman, David Nutter, Kim Manners, or John Bartley before The X-Files, and that Morgan & Wong had, repeatedly. That's a fact, and it's surely of interest to those who want to know more about the show's early history. Nice to hear I'm 'notorious' (source, please?), but could we see your reasons for deleting the material in question? Overall, the restored-with-changes chapter is a good start, and I'm perfectly willing to talk about how it can be improved. But you can't talk about Morgan & Wong's influence on the show without talking about the people they brought to the show, some of whom stayed with it for its entire run. It's also a fact that Morgan & Wong had considerable experience with TV drama before The X-Files, and Carter had not (unless you think "Brand New Life" qualifies as serious drama). None of this is opinion. So let's see your reasoning as to why the material you deleted should stay deleted. And if you don't provide any reasoning, beyond my 'notoriety', it's going back in. As many times as necessary. And let me say, I'd be more than happy to submit to third party arbitration from Zepheus. It's just a short chapter in a Wikipedia article about a TV show. It's not my life's work. Try not to make it yours, okay? Xfpisher 19:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Purposely bringing up that Morgan and Wong had experience writing dramas and Chris Carter did not is weasel words--that is implying that they are the true brains behind the show which is a matter of opinion.--Bunbury18 19:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

But opinions are formed with facts--or ought to be. If you don't like the opinions that might result from people knowing the facts, that's your affair. As I understand it, the term 'weasel words' refers to phrases like "Some people think", or "It is believed by many". Not statements of fact, however they may be interpreted. A fact is a fact is a fact. Facts can certainly be used to slant opinions, but the solution to that is more facts, not the erasure of facts. I'd like to see you quote the source that led you to this interpretation. Here's a link to Wikipedia's article on weasel words. Please try to refrain from editing it, okay? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_wordsXfpisher 19:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to list M & W's previous work experience knock yourself out, although it's not exactly relevant to an article about The X-Files--maybe on their individual pages. But following it up with the non sequitur "Chris Carter did not previously work on a drama" is irrelevant and deceptive because it creates the impression that he was not responsible for the show, which he obviously was.--Bunbury18 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant because it gives the reader an idea of why their contribution was so important. No one person is ever solely responsible for the quality (or lack thereof) of something as complex as a TV show, as Zepheus and I agreed earlier. The show needed experienced personnel, and fast. Roth hired Morgan & Wong to fill that gap, and they played a very central role in the show's formative period. In turn, they were instrumental in the hiring of many key contributors, as well as being key contributors themselves. In so doing, they helped the show, and they helped Carter--are you saying he never needed any help? That he did it all himself? His career before and after The X-Files certainly raises some doubt in this regard, but please note I didn't mention that, because it wasn't relevant. There's plenty of information about Carter in the article, but please remember this is not an article about Chris Carter either, but about a television show he and many other people contributed to. Chris Carter actually has his own Wikipedia article as well. Have you considered expanding it? It's basically just a stub at the moment. Btw, "which he obviously was" is actually a very good example of weasel words. Xfpisher 20:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not weasel words when it's used in a positive, and even if it was who cares? This isn't the main page article.--Bunbury18 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Also, why single out Morgan and Wong? Carter wrote over four times as many episodes as them, and there were several other popular writers like Frank Spotnitz, John Shiban, and Vince Gilligan. And you don't say anything about the directors, the most frequent being Kim Manners, Rob Bowman, and David Nutter. But probably none of these people were as important in making the show a big hit as Duchovny and Anderson. --Bunbury18 01:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just briefly responding--I've made sure to mention Bowman, Manners, and Nutter. I don't know how you can say Spotnitz was a popular writer. Maybe he should be mentioned, but given that he didn't create a single important character, or really do anything that hadn't been done already, I don't see what can be said about him, beyond the fact that he was a high-ranking producer on the show. His writing never attracted much attention, and he had no writing/production experience prior to The X-Files. He was basically Carter's shadow. And yes, Duchovny and Anderson were key to the show's popularity, and get plenty of attention in the article. Perhaps it should be mentioned that it was Randy Stone, executive VP in charge of casting at 20th Television at that time, who suggested they be cast in the roles? Good point--thanks for raising it.

Maybe the best thing would be to make the section about the people behind the scenes in general, as opposed to just Glen Morgan and James Wong. - Zepheus 03:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. Not everyone can be mentioned, but certainly Howard Gordon and Alex Gansa deserve to be brought up as important early contributors--Gordon in particular, but he and Gansa were writing partners when they came to the show (it's hard to find much info on Gansa, who is something of a cypher, even now--he's currently an exec producer on Numb3rs). Gordon introduced Krycek, and his episodes were consistently among the most popular. He's also gone on to be the biggest deal of any of these people (including Carter) in present day series TV, though primarily through running other people's shows. Anyway--I really like what you did with the section (that was you, right? didn't check), but I had to fix a few things. For one thing Morgan and Wong worked on Space: Above and Beyond after the first time they left The X-Files, though they did also work with Peter Roth on that show (he pitched the concept to them, and I personally suspect he had a lot more input into the early conceptualizing of The X-Files than most people realize, but I won't put that in, don't worry ;). I substituted Wiseguy and The Commish, to give an idea of the range of their Pre-TXF experience. I also put back the mention of their past work experience in Canada with Nutter, Bowman, Manners, and Bartley--that really needs to be in there, to make it clear that their influence wasn't simply on the episodes they wrote/produced themselves--hiring is an important part of creating a show, and it's a mistake to assume that the showrunner-of-record is always doing the hiring. On reflection, I'm going to agree with Bunbury that Carter's Pre-TXF experience should be dealt with elsewhere. I added in a bit about their influence on both the mythology and 'MOTW' episodes. One thing I'd like to point out is that you can't fairly judge a given writer's influence on any show by the number of episodes he or she contributes. Some episodes are so popular and original that they end up influencing everything that comes afterward. Morgan and Wong only worked on one complete season of the show--the first--then on part of the second and fourth seasons--but it's in the first year or two that a show compiles all the basic patterns and archetypes that determine everything that happens later. The first season or two are always the most influential, and what happens afterwards is basically just finding ways to creatively repeat what has already been done. There are three basic types of X-Files stories--Alien Conspiracy, Monster of the Week, and finally the Humorous Episodes which essentially exist to poke fun at the previous two types of story. Carter introduced the first type, Morgan and Wong the second (the way I hear it, they had to persuade Carter not to make the show all about aliens and conspiracies, but that's from 'Deep Throat' sources, and not citable). Darin Morgan created the third type of story, with "Humbug", late in season two--and of course he wouldn't have been so influential on the show's second and third seasons if his older brother Glen hadn't gotten him involved. Okay--I'd like to add another quote or two from mainstream articles, and then I think we can let the Morgan and Wong section stand for now. But of course, I could be wrong about that.  ;)Xfpisher 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Just because Morgan and Wong wrote the first episodes that featured Skinner and The Lone Gunman doesn't mean they invented those characters, unless you can provide a source. A writing credit doesn't mean they wrote every line of the episode--if you're a screenwriter you know how that goes. Carter had final edit over each episode. 2. Do you really mean to say Morgan and Wong invented voice-overs? That's a pretty common feature in tv and movies. 3. You want to say that Morgan and Wong invented the monster-of-week phenonemon just because they got writing credit for "Squeeze"? Unless you can provide a source this is pretty shaky. --Bunbury18 15:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see you producing a single source to verify that Carter had 'final edit' over anything Morgan and Wong did. Sure, he could have insisted that they change something he didn't like, and he could have made suggestions, but as matters transpired, he didn't rewrite a single word of theirs in the first two seasons. Produce a single source where either they or Carter say otherwise. Carter rewrote the more junior staffwriters frequently, but he never rewrote them--he did insist they make some changes to their fourth season episodes. The fact that one can find sources (well, I can find them--you haven't found a single source of anything yet--geez, I'm the one who got the show's Peabody award listed on this article!) to substantiate that fact only makes it more glaring that there are no sources to indicate any changes foisted upon them during the first two seasons. You can't just arbitrarily declare "Chris Carter Made This!" as the default setting, and force anybody who says otherwise to hew to a higher standard of evidence than you. That isn't how television works, and I don't think it's how Wikipedia works either. If Zepheus tells me something needs to be backed up, I'll back it up. However, the word "create" could be replaced by "introduce". I hope you're not honestly saying that Chris Carter was solely responsible for every single one of the 200+ episodes of the series, while also being involved with the creation of three other television shows and a movie? And that everyone else was just along for the ride? I didn't use the word 'invent' with regard to Morgan and Wong and the MOTW eps, or with regard to their use of voiceovers. In fact, there is not a single story idea or framing device in the nine year run of The X-Files that is wholly original to that show. But it's a fact that they wrote AND produced the first MOTW ep, and it's a fact that they were the first to write a conspiracy episode that began the way Little Green Men does--and Carter didn't use that technique until much later. Xfpisher 15:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Calm down there. I'm not writing anything about Carter on the main page so why would I need to produce sources? You're section on Morgan and Wong seems unprofessional and fan-boyish like you're trying to praise them for every little influence they had on the show. "They were the first to use voice-overs--aren't they geniuses!" Um no, voice-overs are an extemely common screenwriting technique. If that weren't bad enough, you have to write snarky little comments like "Chris Carter didn't use a voice-over until later." What does that have to do with anything? You are editorializing, but I know you love Morgan and Wong and want them to get all the credit and Carter to get none.--Bunbury18 16:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite calm, and I have to ask--why AREN'T you writing anything? It seems like your only contribution to this article to date has been negative. Do you have anything of your own to contribute, or do you simply want to delete everything you don't agree with? You know quite well I didn't say they invented the voiceover--but given how often Carter imitated what they did in Little Green Men, he must have thought it was pretty durned clever. If you're really saying Carter could only be the influencer, never the influenced, you're going to have to find one HELL of a convincing source to substantiate that. You keep making this personal, but again--I'm providing information. You're only providing criticism. Xfpisher 16:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's why I'm saying the whole issue of who gets specific credit for what is extremely murky and should be left out of an encyclopedia altogether unless there are firm statements by interviewed participants as to who did what. However, I do agree that Darin Morgan was the first to clearly show that comedy could be done on The X-Files, so if you want say something along those lines that might be a good idea.--Bunbury18 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion noted, and I've been thinking about that. There should definitely be short sections on Gordon & Gansa, and Darin Morgan--maybe he could go in seasons 3-6? As you perhaps have noticed, I've changed the language--and provided a direct link to a source that quite clearly shows Morgan and Wong got Bartley on the show. And I'll find some sources that substantiate their role in hiring those directors--what I can't prove, I'll excise. Fair enough? Btw--in the end credits for the The Lone Gunmen series, you'll find the words "Based on characters created by Glen Morgan and James Wong." This is also mentioned at the Wikipedia article for those characters (and I'm not the one who put that in there). Do I need to cite all this as a source, or are you willing to let it rest, for the sake of brevity? It's no more a point of contention that they introduced these characters than it is that Carter introduced Mulder and Scully in the pilot. There are no unfactual statements in the section now--no weasel words, no irrelevant material. You may not like it, but since the section begins by saying they were influential, it surely is ontopic to say HOW they were influential, no?Xfpisher 17:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remember. Let's stay civil here. Debates are good, but arguments can be detrimental. Just try to stay level-headed so that we can make a really good article here. - Zepheus 17:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree to let it rest for now.--Bunbury18 17:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that--and I appreciate you forcing me to be more rigorous. It's a much more convincing and substantive section on Morgan and Wong than it was before I responded to your criticisms. I'm sure that was your intent all along, and I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I look forward to seeing you contribute some content to the article.Xfpisher 17:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The article already looks a lot better, thanks to both of you. Make sure and add any Must Do's to the table up above. Also, I may archive some of this onto the Discussion page shortly. - Zepheus 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think you really deserve most of the credit for that. I've simply improved on some language I contributed years ago, to what was then a very sloppy article--information which I'm surprised was still there so recently--it was deleted more than once in the past, and I didn't restore it--didn't know HOW. Bunbury--well, he helped stress the importance of being earnest in documenting one's information--though it would have been nice if he'd provided any documentation or information of his own. Whatever his motives, the overall effect was positive. It's definitely been a learning experience for me. Probably for him as well. ;)Xfpisher 18:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

So I dug out my copy of "The Truth is Out There: The Official Guide to The X-Files" (seasons 1&2) by Brian Lowry, who got insider access to the X-Files set by being an old schoolchum of Frank Spotnitz, and was certainly bending over backwards to be complimentary to Chris Carter in that book--and it basically says what I say about Morgan & Wong's production experience, and Carter's relative lack thereof (Lowry says diplomatically that this was one of those times when a showrunner was born on the spot). It mentions their role in hiring much of the production staff, and Carter himself points to "Squeeze" as the episode that proved The X-Files could be more than just a show about aliens. And Carter doesn't seem to have minded any of this too much, considering that Lowry got to write another Official Guide or two, before somebody else took over. Anyway, I can't link to it, and it's a LOT of text to be quoting from. I don't really want the section on Morgan & Wong to get significantly longer than it is now. I'll have to give some thought to how this should be documented--or, given the wide availability of the source, whether it needs to be. It's never been any sort of secret how influential they were on the show. It's just that Carter was interviewed constantly, and Morgan & Wong rarely--people forgot. Xfpisher 13:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't find my copy. I'm frustrated. I also once had "The Nitpicker's Guide for X-Philes," another valuable resource. We need a reference link that links that section down to the citation of the book. I don't know how to do this yet, so I'll figure it out. - Zepheus 17:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a decent small library of books about The X-Files (purchased for pennies at half.com), plus I've got some copies of the Official Magazine (which stopped publishing quite a while ago). These days, you can get used copies of these books very cheap. Once you've got that reference link thingy worked out, sounds like it would be a lot easier to cite sources that aren't online, which would be a huge help. My personal favorite book on the show is "X-Treme Possibilities: A Comprehensively Expanded Rummage Through Five Years of the X-Files"--it's basically three eccentric Brits reviewing the eps, and it's the furthest thing imaginable from being an 'official guide'--and so, of course, it comes closer to the truth than any of the books where the authors felt they had to suck up.Xfpisher 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, this being Wikipedia, what I had thought was a very satisfactory section on Morgan & Wong remained in that condition for all of a day or three. I had to make a few spelling corrections to the new material--but overall, I think it's confusing to talk about development of the mytharc AND behind the scenes stuff in the same section. I certainly never meant to say that Morgan and Wong were the prime influence on the mytharc, which is how it now reads--their three mythology eps were disproportionately influential, but they are still only three eps. The passage is still highly complimentary to Morgan & Wong, which is well and good, but as the section is currently constituted, it's just confusing. I think dividing it by years was an interesting idea that just doesn't quite work, because the show was always changing, along with its creative personnel. There should be a separate section devoted to key contributors other than Carter himself. And a separate section for the mythology. And of course, the mythology stories don't even make up half the episodes. Xfpisher 20:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the story and behind-the-scenes sections should be separate. Also, the constant change was the impetus behind breaking it up, to organize somewhat and show the different eras of the show. - Zepheus 21:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we'll keep plugging away at it. Changing "History" to "Behind the Scenes" or "Major Contributors", or something like that would probably help avoid confusion. Or maybe "History" could be divided into two sections--history in terms of the actual storyline, and history in terms of the people who created that storyline. Not the same thing at all, though obviously related. But honestly, my primary interest in participating is to make sure everybody, INCLUDING Chris Carter, gets the credit they deserve for the show--no more, no less. The mytharc is not that interesting to me these days, particularly what happened after season two. I could care less who the father of Scully's baby was. I'm not even sure she was the mother. Nobody will ever know. Nobody was ever supposed to know. Forget it Jake, it's Cartertown.  ;) Xfpisher 15:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

67.20.253.97

I'm not sure why you removed all that history content. Are you working on it? Did you archive it? Let us all know. - Zepheus 00:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Typical of the vendetta Pisher/Clyons has against Carter and Spotnitz. He tries to make it seem like Morgan and Wong are the only reason The X-Files was successful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.253.97 (talk • contribs)

Um--I'm guessing this last comment isn't from you, Zepheus? I didn't remove any historical content. I think that section that was removed could definitely be replaced with a more substantive chapter about Morgan and Wong's irreplaceable contribution to the show. And it's hard to see how any Chris Carter fan could object, since Carter himself said (not as often as he should have, perhaps) that their contribution was immense. Basically, the show as we came to know it was their creation at least as much as Carter's. They didn't work on the pilot, but it was the first season and a half that really took the pilot's ideas and ran with them--and that was probably more their doing than his.Xfpisher 19:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was surely not me. It was an IP that made some rather large edits to The X-Files page, removing content and not giving a reason. I left a message for him to discuss it here and this is his reply. One thing, what sources are you referencing when you say, "Carter himself said that their contribution was immense?" - Zepheus 20:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A few (too few) interviews--I could find a few specific comments, if you like. I wasn't aware I had to cite sources in the middle of a conversation. ;) Anyway, I had assumed, wrongly, that you removed that section, and that you had your reasons. Apologies--should have known better. Now it's looking like a malicious edit. In fact, there's nothing else you could call it. The person even admitted he erased the section because I wrote some of it. Can the section be put back, until we can come up with something better?Xfpisher 20:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The good thing is: that IP has very few contributions, so just click "contribs" and then check out the edits he made, which can easily be put back in. I would actually simply recommend that you be in charge of those sections...if you like. As for the sources, I know your just joshing me, but I think that this page needs more references. There are even more books on The X-Files out there, as well as interviews with Chris Carter, director's commentary on the DVDs, and other short documentaries that need to be cited. So, just make sure that whenever you're typing something up, you at least have a list of sources to back it up, no matter what the source is. For example, even if we saw it on a TV special, we should keep note of that, because it's citable material. - Zepheus 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'd like to be in charge of that section--and since I'll be responsible for it, I guess I'm going to have to be more responsible and cite sources. I have tons of material, it's just a pain to actually have to footnote. And I'm still a neophyte about the technical aspects of Wikipedia--it's so easy to just change something, but it's hard to actually format it properly. I can always just give the name and date of the publication in question, but there are more streamlined ways to do it, I'm sure. I'll look over the user guidelines, and try to teach myself how to do this properly. Xfpisher 13:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you look at the Citing Sources page? - Zepheus 17:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at it earlier today, but it'll take a bit of time for me to process it. Some of it's pretty easy, some isn't. This is going to be a LOT of work. I can see why most people just edit and run. I'll need some time to dig up some sources I have, and find new ones, and then to figure out how much to include. I have to figure out how to say what needs to be said without making the section too long. Regarding the material that was maliciously edited out--I've located it, but not sure what's the best way to put it back. Just copy/paste?Xfpisher 18:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I would say that copy-and-paste would probably be the best method. Be careful to place it where it was and not duplicate any info. And remember, this is all a team effort, so if you need any help citing your sources, give a holler. - Zepheus 19:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Awards

And while you're here, do you have any suggestions for the awards section? - Zepheus 20:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

IMDb has a list of pretty much all the significant awards the show ever won (or didn't win, after being nominated). However, I think the only awards worth mentioning are the Emmys, Golden Globes, and the Peabody. For some reason, IMDb doesn't list the Peabody--that was awarded in 1996. It's a prestigious award, but not a competitive one--they can give as many or few as they wish. NYPD Blue and The Simpsons were awarded Peabodys the same year, along with many other programs of various types. The X-Files traditionally didn't do that well with competitive awards. You can't link to a specific search page on their website--

http://www.peabody.uga.edu/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106179/awards Xfpisher 13:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I got most of my information from the IMDb site. I didn't know about the Peabody. In the section, I mention a number of different awards that The X-Files won from different groups, including the Environmental Media Awards, to show the variation of awards the show did win. I just thnik it's a little Emmy heavy. Also, I might get rid of the acting / technical / writing subheadings. What do you think? - Zepheus 16:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that you need all those separate headings (it's a little busy, isn't it?), but you do need to distinguish the awards in terms of their relative importance. Bear in mind that from the POV of people working in the industry (or most fans, for that matter), the Emmys are the most coveted award by far, and the most prestigious Emmys are the non-technical ones. Winning an Emmy for cinematography or art direction is a very big deal for the cinematographer or art director winning it, but it doesn't tend to create any buzz around a show, or get much attention in the press. It was a very big deal for Darin Morgan to win the best drama script award for a genre show. That was the next best thing to a best drama Emmy (which TXF never won). It gave the show a great deal more mainstream legitimacy (unfortunately, it also encouraged Chris Carter to try his hand at writing humorous episodes). Most people have never heard of the Environmental Media Awards--I kind of think awards like that use the shows to publicize themselves, more than vice versa, but that's just an opinion. I can show you an article where Chris Carter bemoans the fact that The X-Files was no longer being nominated for the best drama Emmy--he said The Sopranos knocked it out of contention. Maybe awards don't prove much of anything, but I think David Chase having five Emmys and Chris Carter having none is actually a pretty good indicator of their relative abilities--or at least the level of respect they enjoy in the industry. Carter was very frustrated by his inability to win an Emmy for writing or direction, as well as best drama. Again--opinion. And I have some facts behind it, but not the citable kind. ;)Xfpisher 19:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it feels way too busy. There's just not enough info under each section to warrant the subheadings at this point. I think I'm going to reorganize it a little bit. Maybe I'll look up the correlation between the Emmy win(s) and show ratings, skirting the boundaries of "original research." - Zepheus 19:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

A fairly large section of the trivia is superfluous IMO. Much of it belongs in the profiles of each character, or in the bin. I shall make edits to that section and if necessary, to the character profiles. Thingymajig 12:32, 4 June 2006 (BST)

I've made minor cuts to the Trivia, removing the most obvious candidates for deletion. However, there is still a fair bit to be done.

Around The World

Is this section necessary at all? Provided there is little to no objection I shall delete it. Thingymajig 12:53, 4 June 2006 (BST)

In fact, I shall not delete the entire section, but remove the pointless naming of the show worldwide and write a brief paragraph detailing how many countries it airs in etc. Thingymajig 14:51, 4 June 2006 (BST)

I've made a framework which can be built upon. However, it's skimpy on detail, and I'm finding difficulty in gaining more information in regards to what channels it was shown in each country. Thingymajig 15:38, 4 June 2006 (BST)

It's a decent start and definitely a base to build on. Thanks! - Zepheus 02:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Cast

I've reorganised the cast, putting characters like Cancer Man and Krycek into recurring guest cast list as they only appear in a few episodes per season. Also cut out some characters that either only appeared in a couple of episodes, or weren't significant enough to be included. However, I've kept minor but important characters in. I.e: Gibson Praise, despite only appearing in a couple of episodes in it's nine year run, is a pretty significant character. Thingymajig 21:47, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Citing sources

Hey guys. Check out what I've done with the sources on the X-Files page. For books, it simply needs that ref tag, for web citations use the cite web template. You can name the refs also, which might become necessary if we reference them multiple times in the article. - Zepheus 18:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)