Talk:List of The X-Files episodes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early comments

Some of these episode descriptions are incorrectly placed. In Season 1, for example, the description of "Shapes" is actually that of "Dod Kalm," and the description of "Roland" actually describes "Soft Light."

---

I'm not an X-Files fan. Just surfed in to get a little plot information. Are these plot summaries supposed to be so lame? I've only watched a single episode (season 9, episode 1), but I barely recognized its description in this collection. So I read episode 2 to see what happened next. Useless.

I found http://xfiles.wearehere.net/xfiles.htm#Start to be far superior to the information here. Yeah, I know, this is a wiki and I should just update the pages myself. But I think the show is a waste of my time to watch. So much more, then, spending time editing 'pedia pages related to it. Let a fan do it. <>< tbc 16:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I think the "old way" of listing the episodes was much better then this. In the main X-Files article there were a direct link to each of the seasons and their summaries. The "new way" is just a to cumbersome method of doing it, imho.

What do you think of it?

---

"There are eight episode themes (official classification)"

Official? Official according to whom? From what source? Chuck 23:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I Googled a bit and couldn't find any source for this classification, so I've deleted it as original research. If there is an independent, verifiable source for it, feel free to revert and add a citation for the source. Chuck 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Reformat

The page should be reformatted so it looks more like the List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, and the Star Trek: Enterprise episodes page. This means screenshots and better summaries. The screenshots I'll be able to provide in time, but summaries are something that many peopl can work on. As soon as you have seen an episode, go summarize! I've already started on Season 6. NeoChrono Ryu 00:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, also the different season lists should also be merged to one article, like the above examples. -- Ned Scott 04:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you as well, but you should probably see this discussion before changing anything to see how the issue was approached before. I'm not sure whether User:Netoholic is still active. Acegikmo1

As a person having had The X-Files listed, I think that the seasons themselves should be merged with this although can also remain to retain their olde articles just simply put more information on the season and the various changes in the seasons after.

Also, new screenshots rather than simply images uploaded from some site.. This has been done quite alot of the Star Trek: Enterprise episodes page and has proved problematic. DrWho42 16:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Threw up some merge notices all around. Speak up if you have objections.--Will2k 19:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge complete. One key argument against dividing seasons in episode lists can be seen across these 9 seasons. Because there is so little traffic to all 9, changes made to one season are not consistant in another. I have tried to clean it all up a bit but we still need to really drive towards consistancy.--Will2k 17:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Object Sorry doesn't seem right to me maybe we could work something out? Also why do you feel the need to merge these? --Mahogany 17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look I was starting to make all the episodes a table, but it takes a hell of a lot of time --Mahogany 17:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The need to merge them was apparent for several reasons:

1. Most other episode lists like the examples given above are on one page.
2. Merging the episodes into one list makes it easier to see problems (eg. inconsistancies) across seasons.
3. Allows quick access to the information someone would want (what if they don't know what season an episode was in, are they going to search all 9 documents?)
4. Forces episode descriptions to be short and concise for the sake of formatting. Which is a good thing.

I suggest we keep them all merged at least until each season is cleaned up and follows the format suggested at the project. If the article is still too long after that, we can split them up into individual seasons. Also, since you find building tables time consuming, see this template from the project for a shortcut --Will2k 17:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, until we fix these seasons with the proper tables ect. no more will be spoke on the matter --Mahogany 17:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now there's been no objection to the way I've formated season 1-3 --Mahogany 17:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 1-3 look good, though eventually, I recommend we tweak them to use the template. You will find building season 4-9 easier with the template as well I'm sure. It's conducive to building new tables --Will2k 17:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

True! (Back to work)--Mahogany 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:X-Files seasons

Template:X-Files seasons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Will2k 17:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be good to add the * as it was before the merger on the episodes which continues the mythology!--82.168.111.16 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Airdates

You guys do know that YYYY-MM-DD and MODAY YEAR look exactly the same when wikified (provided you set up a date preference in your settings)? I noticed some one went out of the way to change them in season four. I used the YYYY-MM-DD on the season five table because it used the fewest characters and I could type it faster and not have to worry about spelling, but I see all wikified dates as MODAY YEAR because thats what I'm used to reading. Jay32183 14:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Job, Everyone

Well good evening all. I'd like to take a minute off from being serious. I started editing this page just a few days ago, and since then I have seen an incredible amount of time and effort poured out from all of you into this list. Seeing that really makes me smile, despite the fact that smiling is painful since I just got my wisdom teeth out!

So, you all made me smile, and I'd like to send a smile to all of you.

WBredefeld has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

(You don't really have to pass it on)

Keep up the great work everyone...just a few more seasons to go!

--WBredefeld 05:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

episode #'s

The episode #'s at the far right of the episode is very confusing. I don't understand it. Can that be removed?

I'll field this one. I'm not sure how long you have been with this page, but here goes. At first, we had only the production code. We decided to add the episode numbers, because a lot of the episodes were produced out of order. I thought it might be helpful to have the episode number for the entire show, and then the seconde number being the episode number within its season. so.... (EP#)-(Season#)(EP#). For example, the 10th episode of season one would be "10-110"

Using that method was my idea. But if a few people don't like it, I'm sure we can come to a democratic decision to remove it (or keep it if most people like it.) Before you decide what you like, take a look a featured list - List of The Simpsons episodes

Notice that they use this numbering method.

--WBredefeld 17:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I still like the way it's always been done and I don't understand what the problem is (ex. 2x14) --Mahogany 20:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Look of table

The table currently looks a little odd. For season 1, most of the production codes are bold, which is unusual for an episode list. I'm proposing that the table be changed to split the Episodes column into three columns, and have the production code, episode number for the season, and episode number overall. It would look something like this:

Image	Title	Writer(s)	Director	Original airdate	Episode
	"Pilot"	Chris Carter	Robert Mendel	September 10 1993	1x79	1	1
	Agent Dana Scully is assigned to work with Agent Fox Mulder on the X-Files in an attempt to debunk his left-field work. Their first case has them travelling to Oregon to investigate a series of deaths within a single high-school class. Guest starring: Zachary Ansley as Billy Miles

Comments? --MZMcBride 03:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Why 3 sections for the episode number? Is one of the numbers for season number? -- Ned Scott 03:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally disagree with the above example. I think it's too different from so many other episode lists.

Here is what I would like to see.

Screenshot	Title	Writer	Director	Original airdate	Production Code	#
01–101	"Pilot"	Chris Carter	Robert Mendel	September 10 1993	1X79
Agent Dana Scully is assigned to work with Agent Fox Mulder on the X-Files in an attempt to debunk his left-field work. Their first case has them travelling to Oregon to investigate a series of deaths within a single high-school class. Guest starring: Zachary Ansley as Billy Miles

--WBredefeld 04:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That looks alot better than the former. Though, I'd rather have better screenshots since some of them look like they were taken off of some fan-site.. It's like how the Star Trek: Enterprise list just uses stuff from StarTrek.com and can be rather problematic. DrWho42 04:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and most of them don't even have screenshots. Hopefully that can be dealt with. As for the table, please let me know what you think, MZMcBride. Also, are there any other objections/suggestions/comments for how the tables should look?

--WBredefeld 04:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like taking up so much room for the Production Code column. It seems to just take up too much space when there is limited room for all the information. That's why I thought it would be better if the Episode column could contain all the different numbering schemes for a particular episode, yet not take up a lot of room on the page. The template method is all right, but I'm not a huge fan of the grey background. If others like it, we'll use it. Also, it should be noted that screenshots are a very contentious issue right now on pages exactly like this, so before somebody goes through all the trouble of uploading images for each episode, be forewarned that some users (myself certainly excluded) may take the pictures down under a violation of fair use. --MZMcBride 05:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I totally udnerstand. Take a look at this one.

Screenshot	Title	Writer	Director	Original airdate	Code	#
01–101	"Pilot"	Chris Carter	Robert Mendel	September 10 1993	1X79
Agent Dana Scully is assigned to work with Agent Fox Mulder on the X-Files in an attempt to debunk his left-field work. Their first case has them travelling to Oregon to investigate a series of deaths within a single high-school class. Guest starring: Zachary Ansley as Billy Miles

I haven't saved as much room as you did, but I was able to cut off about a third of the production code column. As for the background, I have no comment about the colour - gray, something else, whatever people want. Screenshots - I would say don't even go there right now. Let us tackle one thing at a time. --WBredefeld 13:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The gray background is sort of being "tried out" right now. I haven't gotten much feedback on it yet, other than here and at WT:LOE#Cell shading, so I'm not sure what to think of it yet. Would another shade of gray or another color look better, or no shading at all? -- Ned Scott 07:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

oh, and also, the shading is a lot more noticeable now than it originally was, since now the background of the ShortSummary cell is white instead of a very light grey (which is the default in a wikitable). -- Ned Scott 07:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the above layout, with the grey headings, white bg for synopses and blue episode separator. @MZMcBride - I was the one who put the episode numbers in bold, mainly for quick and easy reference for those looking at this article to look up episode names when they only know the number. Makes the number stand out more for those who look for it. 82.32.201.125 04:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I find the # column on the far right of the episode table to be quite confusing. I think it should be removed. Muldernscully 16:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I understand it now, but it is still a bit confusing. Perhaps it can be clarified in some way to indicate what the two numbers signify. Muldernscully 16:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Seasons 3 & 4 still need to be changed to conform with the tables for the other seasons, specifically the episode numbers. I would do it, but I don't know how. Muldernscully 16:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably have time after work and over the weekend to take care of at least one of those. But if someone beats me to it I won't have a problem. Jay32183 16:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Too few info

needs to redicrect to episode desc.list directly,episodes need major expanding.

Disagree with "major expanding." Summaries should be summaries, not transcripts or novelizations. -- Soren.harward 15:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Episode Articles Themselves

Now that we've got the list polished up really well (screenshots I've got a problem with, but it's simply mine..), should we contact the WikiProject Television episodes to pick up where we left off? It does seem, though, that they don't seem as active. DrWho42 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We could begin making pages for indivual episodes while attempting to follow the guidelines at the television episode project. Requesting assistence from the project may fall on deaf ears though. The one suggestion I have with making the pages is take it slow, do not create too many stub pages at once. But you don't have to go so slow as to create a feature article before starting the next one, just bring the article to the point that the deletionists won't be going after it. Jay32183 00:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite right, simply follow the usual format of these sorts of things. Really the usual of what I do with alot of the Doctor Who book articles I do to fill in the blanks. DrWho42 02:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to help out. I got into The X-Files toward the end of season 7 but I recently bought the first 4 DVD sets and have been inhaling them. Let me know if there is anything I can do once you begin creating pages for the individual episodes. Thanks, - Hollis1138 18:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If each episode is to have its own article (the Firefly episode pages are a great example), it might be helpful to have a template for each season. I've made one here: Template:Xfiles_Season1. Let me know what you think and if this can be useful. -Hollis1138 15:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, you don't actually need to put episode in the names of the episode pages. Pilot (The X-Files) would be just fine. Jay32183 01:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what's the perceived need for individual articles, anyway? There are so many episode summaries around, and trying to source all of the speculation people will want to include will just make 100+ more articles to watchlist. On the other hand, without that speculation, I'm fairly certain the articles will be permanent stubs, or judged too crufty. I know other series have done it (Simpsons is a particularly egregious example), but perhaps less is more? -- nae'blis _(talk) 01:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Some articles are now using the idea of episode articles by season or story arch. In other words, group detailed summaries that are too long here, likely by season. Each season would then have an article, instead of each episode in that season. -- Ned Scott 03:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Span element around episode titles

I want to mass-add the span HTML element around the episode titles. This will allow linking directly to a table record here from other pages. The reader will not have to scroll through the table to find the desired episode. I will leave a 24 hour period, if anyone disagrees with that. --Dead3y3 ^{Talk page} 19:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is already a function of {{episode list}}. You can use the value of EpisodeNumber or ProdCode.

[[List of The X-Files episodes#epEpisodeNumber]], such as List of The X-Files episodes#ep05-105

or

[[List of The X-Files episodes#pcProdCode]], such as List of The X-Files episodes#pc1X04

-- Ned Scott 03:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing Red Speedo?

How come no reference to the red speedo in the summary? That is obviously an important aspect of that episode. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.7 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

No reference, because no one has written it yet. That's where you come in, anonymous editor / fan of DD in a red speedo. --lquilter 02:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor "Closure" Episode comment

Article states "walk-ins, saving the souls of children doomed to live unhappy lives", but I thought that the walk-in's were saving children from abuse and grizzle deaths. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.245.17.138 (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Images

I just uploaded all of the images from the Season 2 articles into the guide, save for Our Town which had no image. If someone could help with the rest of the guide that'd be great.--CyberGhostface 16:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What this page really needs is improvement of the summaries so they match the images. In the history there are versions with an image for every episode, but people have been removing them because fair use images are supposed to illustrate the accompanying text. The current summaries frequently tease and leave out the most important part of an episode, but the images usually show just that part. - Peregrine Fisher 17:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Going to try to create articles for Episodes

Hi, Over the next few weeks, I will try to create wikipedia articles for the rest of the xfiles episodes.. Note that these will most likely be stubs and will need a proper summary.. --Illyria05-- 18:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, FYI, I've created articles from 2x25 (first red link article, and last episode of 2nd season) to 3x24.. I've also added summaries from the list page onto each episode (dont worry, I cited. I am now onto the 4th season, starting with 4x01.. --Illyria05-- 23:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, I am withdrawing from creating the episode pages, there are just simply too many episodes left to create, and I do not really have the time to dedicate.. However, I will post what I have created in the last month and a half since my last update.. I created articles for 4x01-5x08, and 9x18.. So, all in all, 2x25-5x08, and 9x18.. Anyway, I did see User:Melissa Westfall create the episode Chinga, so hopefully she will carry the torch for the rest of the episodes.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 00:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Table

Can someone fix season 8? It's messed up, and I don't know how to fix it. Muldernscully 15:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The major problem I fixed by finding a wiki link where there was an uneven number of hard brackets "[", if they don't match it can break the table. Another problem is that if a bullet "*" is used to start the last line of the ShortSummary, that also messes up the table. The real problem with this page is we're trying to fit information that should only be on inidividual episode pages inside the shortsummary section. If we can get the ShortSummary section to contain only summary, it would really help the table stay stable. - Peregrine Fisher 16:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Episode notability

Many or all of the existing individual episode pages for this series appear to fail the notability guidelines for television episodes, and have been tagged accordingly. These articles can be improved through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. Overly long plot summaries should be edited, to a maximum length of approximately ten words per minute of screen time. Trivia should be integrated into the body of the article, or removed if it is not directly relevant. Quotes and images should only be used as part of a critical analysis of the episode. You might also consider merging any notable information onto the show's "List of episodes" or season pages. Otherwise, when these pages come up for review in fourteen days, they may be redirected, merged or deleted. If you want any help or further information, then come to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. Thanks. TTN 19:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Full names

Many of the articles about episodes present the name of the staff (writers, producers and actors) only by their initials, what I think is really bad, making it diffulct to get the ideia at first glance of who is "GM", "CC", "DM" and so on. Why do not use at least their surnames? It would be much better. --Tonyjeff 20:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, generally family names should be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

There is a book called Truth Is Out There: The Official Guide to the X Files by Brian Lowry. If you need more X-Files information (especially about development of episodes), get the book and cite it. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Season 4 & Episode Numbers

I have formatted the rest of Season 4. I intend to fill in lots of holes that are there - writer, director, original air date. I've come across a little issue in Season 4, I am not sure yet if it exists for the others....

It seems that the thing to do for the X-Files is to list the "Production Code" under the "Episode" column. I don't think this is a good idea. The production codes cant be used to order the episodes. Let me give an example.

-"Herrenvolk" is Episode 74, or Episode 1 of Season 4. The production code is 4X01. Fine so far.

-"Home" is Episode 75, or Episode 2 of Season 4. The production code should be (and IS, according to Wikipedia) 4X02, right? NO. 4X02 is actually the prduction code for Episode 77, "Unruhe." The correct production code, for whatever reason, is 4X03.

I think we need to get rid of the production codes, and just use episode numbers, like is the case with many other TV Episode Lists. For now, I will just change the codes to what they really are, but I think getting rid of them should be considered.

Follow Up - I took a look through Seasons 1-5. The first 3 have production codes in an order that makes sense. The production codes for Seasons 4 and 5, however, do not correspond to anything. I like that in Season 5 there is a separate column for the actual episode number. That, however makes me think, "Who cares about the production code? I know I don't. As long as the episode number is given, what does it matter?" --User:WBredefeld 23:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's important to know whether or not the episodes were shown in the same order in which they were made. Seasons 4 and 5 were not, and using the production code is the easiest way to make the note. Jay32183 02:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand. After reading the comment left by Jay32183, I took a look at some featured episode lists. I noticed that they often include both. In the next couple of days, I will add a comlumn for episode number. I propose that in the episode column (as seen in the simpsons episode list, and others) there be 2 numbers. The first being the episode number for the entire show. The second being the season number and the episode number of that season. So it would look like (Ep#) - (Season#)(Ep#).

For the episode "Home"....the number would be 75 - 402. It is the 75th episode. It is the 2nd episode of the 4th season.

I like this idea, but it could be kept simple with just the episode number for entire show (75). WBredefeld 03:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I notice that someone has changed the production codes (the right-hand column) on season 4 again so that they are in ascending order of when the episodes were broadcast, meaning that the production codes are no longer correct. I don't have the information to correct them myself. But I agree with WBredefeld above - "Who cares about the production code?". Jay32183 says that it is "important to know whether or not the episodes were shown in the same order in which they were made", but why is that important?--Pelago (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Screenshots

I began adding screenshots for the episodes earlier this year, per that other episodes for different shows did that. I wanna know if anyone would like to help out and if there is any problem with that? --C.Black 18:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember, screenshots should be low resolution and should uniquely define the episode in question.--Will2k 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to add screencaps. If there are any problems with them then please don't hesitate to contact me. I'll start adding some tomorrow evening around 6pm (UK time).--Alan-WK 02:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly (in my opinion), I'd like for the first few to be changed to something different. Well, mostly I refer to is the Pilot and Conduit since they do not conform as far as shape goes and follows the problem of uploading StarTrek.com images for the Star Trek: Enterprise list.. Conduit even more so since it reminds me of something uploaded from a fan-site and just seems inappropriate. DrWho42 04:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it won't be tonight I'll be able to start adding screencaps. Tomorrow's Saturday. I'll have more time then. Sorry.--Alan-WK 17:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, the images need to be low resolution and uniquely identify the episode (by illustrating the plot, not trivia). Don't forget to put the fair use rationale on the image pages; look at List of Stargate SG-1 episodes for how to do that. Jay32183 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone add fair use rationales to the image description pages? I'd do it myself but I am not an expert on the series so I cannot explain why particular images were chosen. Jay32183 18:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Great job for whoever did all the screen captures for the ep guide. Kudos! Muldernscully 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the episodes which were continued to the next episode to be clearly marked Continued. example duane berry and ascencion and anasazi and blessing way. what are all the other episodes which are continued?? why is this not marked on this wikipedia?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.70.94 (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Something needs to be done about the excess wikilinking on the page. Except for the dates, we should only make a link the first time a topic is mentioned. We don't need a link to Chris Carter everytime he wrote or directed an episode. I would have just done this myself, but I kind of expect an edit war if we don't talk about it first. Jay32183 18:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a valid suggestion and it is practiced on every other wikipedia article.--Will2k 15:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the episodes which were continued to the next episode to be clearly marked Continued. example duane berry and ascencion and anasazi and blessing way. what are all the other episodes which are continued?? why is this not marked on this wikipedia?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.70.94 (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger/redirect of episodes

Nearly all X-Files episodes have no more content than what is already listed in this List of episodes. I therefore propose to redirect them here, and where applicable, merge. Note that my reasoning is not notability (I bet a couple of X-Files episodes could become GAs) but simply WP:SPINOUT. If I come across X-Files episode articles that have obvious notability through controversies (if there were any) or awards, I'd be fine with leaving them alone for further growth if consensus here is to do so. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am ok with that, if you don't merge the good articles. As far as I remember there is some good staff in there. Maybe the mytharc episodes could make another article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose it simply doesn't make sense to have a mish-mash of articles and redirects. Nomination admits that notbaility is not an issue. Tim! (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also a matter of tidiness. - Magioladitis (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Merge Most of the episodes have virtually no content, like sgeureka said, their just copies from the synopsis of the episode listing. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Although I do feel at least the first and last episode be kept. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in support of a merger, but not to List of The X-Files episodes, instead I'd prefer to see them merged into X-Files (season 1), X-Files (season 2) etc. With 10 seasons of episode summaries, this page would get extremely bulky, but a lot could probably be written about a season, and could it's likely they could be Featured Lists, or even become a Featured topic (see Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of Degrassi: The Next Generation and Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of Lost, where each season's article and the main "List of xx episodes" are all Featured lists themselves. I don't support merging articles where notability does exist through awards, coverage in books and newspapers, etc etc, but I doubt every single episode will be able to achieve that, and it's those that should be merged. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Split Individual season lists would allow for more slightly content for each episode than a full list and would also result in a much less crowded page. --Rikkyc (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I think The X-Files is a notable enough show to garner all of its episodes individually. Kuralyov (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Summary after nearly four months:

1. 3 editors support a merger of episode articles that are either just bad or are just copypastes of the list entries
2. 2 editors support a merger into season articles
3. 1 editor opposes a merger because it would create a mish-mash of articles and redirects
4. 1 editor opposes a merger because notability is not an issue

As a middle ground, this seems like consensus to merge into season articles. Replying to two oppose !voters, I'd say that it's not unusual to have only some episode articles for TV shows and the rest redirects, and that the merge proposal already said that this is all about WP:SPINOUT and not notability. I'll initiate the merger/redirect shortly. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this was most annoying. Lots of relevant and interesting encyclopedic material pertaining to the x-files mythos has been simply thrown out in this completely superflous "merge". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.190.146 (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Where, please, so I can fix it? – sgeureka ^t•c 21:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am also annoyed by this. Synopses and pertinent details were useful to me, and I'm sure to others. Tossed on to the deletionist fire! --John Lunney (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, can you point to the "synopses and pertinent details" that were removed? It's not helpful to express dissatisfaction without leaving a hint what should be fixed to make you happy again. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Having a individual page for each episode allowed for them to be expanded upon. Now, these descriptions are far too brief, and lack many of the interesting trivia notes that were available when each episode had its own dedicated page. I had been enjoying reading about each episode before watching, so that I would know the guest cast (not just a brief mention of people who have become famous, but the lesser-known actors as well), a full and detailed description of the action that would be taking place, and any quirky production-related info (such as behind-the-scenes information). Also, the inclusion of a picture pertaining to the episode on its page was a welcome touch and allowed those seeking more information about each episode to get a feel for what type of show it would be. Putting all the episodes onto one page has made them too brief to be of any use for people looking for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.90.44 (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Finished. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I realise I've missed the boat here, but I liked having all the episodes with their own Wiki page. There was some good work done on screenshots and write-ups on most of the episodes here, and now they're gone. I'm disappointed.Numen (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've begun to take steps which should hopefully satisfy both sides of the argument, recreating episode pages, but only doing so with reasonable amounts of sourced content including a detailed plot of the episode, guest star cast listing, production info and reception info, as available. Only information with a source will be listed, and I've started to tag existing episode articles with trivia listings (much of which can probably be sourced to something, eventually, so I don't think the trivia should be deleted just yet). The X-Files was an extremely popular show and there's so many books and other things out there on it that it should be no trouble created adequate pages for the episodes with sourced content, it'll just take a while given the large number of episodes. I'm starting with the mythology episodes, but would hopefully cover all episodes eventually. New episode pages won't be created (by me at least) until there's a reasonable amount of coverage on top of whats already on the season/episode list pages. Hopefully this will satisfy both sides of the argument, those who want the pages to still exist, and those who felt that the old pages had so little or unsourced info that their existence wasn't really necessary. That said, anyone who could read over the new pages and offer any advice or improvements as deemed necessary would be appreciated. Quiddity99 (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to prevent you from improving X-Files articles, but among your restored articles are Deep Throat (The X-Files episode), Ascension (The X-Files), Colony (The X-Files), End Game (The X-Files), The Jersey Devil (The X-Files), Anasazi (The X-Files), ... all without more than a few very trivial sentences of real-world information at best. Do you intend to improve them further, or is that all the real-world information you could gather? Because at that point, the episodes can be covered in the season lists without loss of any kind of (due) information. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not done with them and shall improve them further. Details such as production info, reception, etc... shall be added for each episode.

I completely disagree that merging them into the season lists can be done without any loss of information; a two to three sentence summary on the season list page is hardly comparable to what is on those pages now. Its not like it was before where the episode pages were pretty much just a two to three sentence plot and unsourced trivia. Those episodes I've put up already have more sourced information than most of those episode pages you chose not to merge.Quiddity99 (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99

"Loss of information" refers to real-world information, of course. Plot summaries should be given WP:DUE weight so that articles do not violate WP:NOT#PLOT, and if there are only two lines of non-trivial real-world information (at best), a plot summary of due length understandably shouldn't go beyond a few lines either. I.e., reducing plot summaries is not loss of information, but a necessary step to get them to due weight. That the other articles weren't merged was not intended to mean that I endorsed their poor state as minimum threshold for inclusion worthiness; rather, I wanted to start cleanup by picking the low fruit first before moving on to the discussion-worthy articles. The other option of is bulldozing through all of them at once, but that only causes heartbreak for anyone involved.

If you haven't worked on episode articles before, you may be able to get a better feeling at WP:GA for what is expected of an episode article. From experience, I can tell that it takes at least a week for inexperienced editors to write a decent keep-worthy episode article with sufficient real-world information. Restoring one or several episode articles a day will likely overwhelm you to get anything done in the end. Still, none of this is said to discourage you from improving the articles. I just want to help you do the work right instead of in vain. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from sgeurka, and certainly would like to satisfy both you, and those that are dissappointed or disagree with mergers of eps/a general lack of info about the show here. I would be perfectly fine with modifying my approach to develop the existing eps in better fashion before moving on to the others. This was a very big show, there's a great many number of sources out there to build episode coverage of this up to Simpsons level up at the very least. That I seem to be the only one willing to do such work is dissappointing, but I won't linger on that. Any advice/input would certainly be appreciated. For example, if episodes in the manner of Beyond the Sea or Shadows, minus the trivia sections, which I hope to all source or eliminate is sufficient for the time being. Quiddity99 (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99

User Confusion

As an actual user of this page, I thought I'd bring up a major confusion I have with the way the episodes are classified. "Episodes marked with an asterisk (*) are part of the series' mytharc. Episodes with a double asterisk (**) are part of the series' Alien Mythology." What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.209.242 (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like OR to me. Who makes the distinction of what's what? A cursory glance at the episodes marked that way makes it appear that those included on the mythology DVDs were marked with the alien mythology asterisks. Some other episodes are marked with a single asterisk, many of whose documentation as a mythology episode can truly be called into question. For example Wetwired includes brief appearances by X and the Cigarette Smoking Man but is principally a stand-alone 'MOTW' episode. If that episode is marked as mythology, then I would question why Avatar isn't, since it also features the Cigarette Smoking Man, the Gray Haired Man and features Skinner in a principal role being set up by the conspiracy. "Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man" is another one that's very difficult to classify because so much of that episode, if not the entire thing can be thrown out as not true (Frank Spotnitz has said as much, and much of the episode contracts other episodes), even though it principally features the Cigarette Smoking Man. I'd agree with the inclusion of Christmas Carol & Emily as they deal with Scully's abduction and feature shapeshifting alien clones & green blood, things that are commonplace in the regular mythology episodes. Dreamland I and II are in no way mythology episodes. They don't feature the Syndicate, the colonists, the black oil, alien clones or anything whatsoever relating to the show's main storyline. And so on. I think either a relabeling of those things or perhaps the complete removal of asterisks from any episode that isn't on the mythology DVDs (unless we can find another OFFICIAL source calling them as such) is necessary. Of course the problem with going by exactly whats on the mythology DVDs is that there are episodes on it like Tempus Fugit & Max that while dealing with aliens have nothing whatsoever to do with the main alien mythology storyline of the show. Bah, so confusing! What to do, what to do...Quiddity99 (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99

Yeah I agree somebody should fix it im trying to watch all the xfiles but only the good episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PipingHotSoup (talk • contribs) 23:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm a little late to this but my understanding is that the single asterisk (*) denotes espidoes that aren't directly involved within the mythology plotline, but still has some bearing upon it - for example, "Sleepless" and "The Host" are marked, but are 'monster of the week' episodes - because they introduce the characters of Krycek and X respectively, and are therefore of note within the mythology. The double asterisk (**) denotes episodes like "Two Fathers" or "Anasazi", which are obviously directly involved within the mythology arc. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I got from it. GRAPPLE X 16:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

93.181.160.87 (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Who or why edited the asterisks in season 1 out?

Removal of Asterisks

Whose bonehead idea was it to remove the asterisks indicating mytharc episodes? That was useful and relevant information, I can't possibly imagine someone's reasoning for taking them out. -- DuckFerret 12:48, 4 December 2011 (PST)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The X-Files. Go call people names there. GRAPPLE X 16:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Asterisks v2.0

What a great idea!! Give that genius the million dollar! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.48.120.129 (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Mytharc episodes

So there used to be an asterisk marking mytharc episodes, but the current template has no good way to add this information. I don't think tagging the title field is appropriate. I've started a section over at Template talk:Episode list requesting some changes to the template to accomodate this.

I attempted to find a decent way to tag the mytharc episodes with an asterisk. However, it appears that when I edit the episode title to include a marker, it puts it within the quote marks. The only way I can suggest to incorporate the markers into the current template is to add them to the episode numbers. Not an ideal solution. It may be possible to delete the quote marks from the episode names - do we really need them? Aswc 00:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The double dagger image works great for the alien mythology episodes. Shouldn't the 1998 theatrical release be tagged as well? --66.110.6.119 (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Would it be objectionable if I included the double dagger for the 1998 movie, or are they specifically from some external reference? --66.110.6.119 (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

1998 Movie and the Alien Myth arc.

I believe the movie qualifies as part of the Alien Myth arc; would it be objectionable the double dagger were included for the 1998 movie, or are the entries specifically from an external reference? --66.110.6.119 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I figured out how to include the double-dagger for the X-Files (1998) movie only to see that it has since been removed. Can anyone explain why? --66.110.6.119 (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't been removed, it's still there. GRAPPLE X 13:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, it was not when I checked earlier which may have been a display glitch of some kind. --66.110.6.119 (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You might have been viewing a cached version of the page that hadn't displayed your last edit. Have a check at the history if you come across something similar in the future; if the edit should be being displayed, just refresh the page a few times to see if it comes through. GRAPPLE X 17:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Nielsen ratings

What is the purpose of this sentence in the intro?:

"The X-Files received Nielsen ratings since its first season.[19] Nielsen ratings are audience measurement systems that determine the audience size and composition of television programming in the United States."

All broadcast TV shows are rated, so I am not sure how this is a unique feature of the X-Files. Jnmwiki (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it's pretty odd. I have removed it. Nielsen ratings is linked in the series overview table, that's sufficient. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Eastern *Standard* Time? For that matter, *Eastern* Time?

What caught my eye, when this showed up on the main page, was the claim that the episodes were run at 9:00 PM Eastern Standard Time. I know that it's become a common error, but it is still absolutely an error, and unacceptable, to use (for example) "Eastern Standard Time" when what you really mean is "Eastern Time" (Eastern Standard Time in the winter, Eastern Daylight Time in the summer).

So unless all episodes were run during the time Standard Time was in effect, this should be changed to Eastern Time.

But actually there's a separate issue, which is that presumably it was 9:00 PM Eastern Time in the Eastern time zone, but not necessarily in the rest of the United States. There are a few broadcasters that might broadcast a show simultaneously in the whole country, but they tend to be cable (TNT is an example). Over-the-air broadcasters are more likely to have done something like "9 PM Eastern and Pacific; 8 PM Central and Mountain".

I'll go ahead and take out "Eastern Standard Time", which the reference doesn't say anything about, and which is absolutely nails-on-chalkboard, but someone should look at the other issue. --Trovatore (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The new episode, S10e02 "Founder's mutation" and the Alien Myth arc.

This episode is mythologic for sure! Please, mark the double dagger in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.223.14.230 (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)