Talk:The X-Files/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Folklore and Mythology

One factor that I think can separate the X-Files from other science fiction television series is that a good deal of the episodes take their "supernatural" element not only from original science-fiction concepts, but directly from traditional folklore, mythology and superstition. I noticed that this is not mentioned in the article. Is there a place in which it would be appropriate to include this? Is it relevant? Does it need a citation? I thank you for your help.

71.190.8.54 17:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ideally you should find a source referring to this, yes. And yes, I think it is relevant. -- Beardo 22:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The supernatural aspect of the show is already right up front in the first paragraph to clarify it's not pure science fiction, there's also a lot of mention of religious themes, and enough of the folklore-based episode subjects are mentioned that anyone would get the idea. You're right though, with the text this long, the word "folklore" should probably be included somewhere in the article. 172.163.15.111 06:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Xfpisher's edits

Xfpisher, you keep adding you own opinions to the "Future of the show" section. You also don't provide edit summaries. Chris Carter is a producer, and producers sign actors for the production company/studio. You keep adding that the actors need to sign with FOX as if Chris' statement about signing the actors in incosequential, but that's only your own interpretation, which has no place in a wikipedia article. Please respond here instead of editing the article again.Equazcion 22:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Xfpisher has a certain point of view about Chris Carter and uses this article to express it. To get his point of view, you should read his article written for "The 11th Hour Web Magazine", called I think "The Carter Conundrum," which is quite interesting. However, statements included only to push a single point of view don't have much place in a Wikipedia article, whether or not they are sourced. It seems like every time Xfpisher makes an edit, it's to include 1. information that makes Chris Carter appear not to be responsible for decisions leading to the success of the show, or which throws doubt on his talent or originality by drawing comparisons that amount to original research (rather than, say, adding tons of information about the contributions of other crew members, which I personally did) or 2. trying to throw doubt on the possibility that there will be a second X-Files movie.

Now the second one I just don't get, because if Carter and Spotnitz are allowed to make another movie and they are such hacks as Pisher believes, it will be an artistic and commercial failure in such proportions that it will validate anything he has ever said about them. I don't understand how the existence of a real, in development second XF movie would make Carter appear more talented than he deserves, but whatever. The movie may still be terrible. 172.163.97.8 00:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Equazcion, sorry not to have responded sooner, but I didn't notice you. My edits have a very simple motivation--Carter's statements about an X-Files movie have been notoriously unreliable, and people should know all the facts. To go by earlier comments Carter made, the movie should have been on DVD three years ago. In the case of his TV Guide remarks (the article wasn't even about The X-Files), we don't even know what his exact comments were, but it seems unlikely that if Anderson and Duchovny had literally been signed for an X-Files movie, that the only reportage on this event would be in a TV Guide article about the Sopranos finale. We know they hadn't been signed several weeks before Carter spoke to TV Guide, thanks to the Wired article link you keep trying to delete, although it marks the first time in years that any 20th Century Fox employee has even mentioned a second X-Files film. Comments like this from Carter and Spotnitz simply don't mean anything when not confirmed by the studio, as indeed they have not been confirmed by the studio. And there's no reason to keep it secret that Anderson and Duchovny are signed--unless the studio hasn't decided to make an X-Files movie. Please note that everything in my edit is 100% factual and sourced, and allows people to make up their own minds--hard to do when you don't have all the facts. If a FOX spokesperson said the studio was nowhere near signing Duchovny & Anderson (and refuses to even confirm that the project exists in any but the most theoretical sense), that's of far more interest than a former showrunner who hasn't produced anything in over five years and has NEVER produced any film other than the one based on his television show, making a vague comment in the context of being asked what he thought of a Sopranos movie. And btw, wasn't it kind of funny that after saying David Chase would be crazy to do a Sopranos movie, when asked how his career was going, Carter had no project in the works to mention other than an X-Files movie? I agree that another X-Files movie would probably be a disaster for all concerned (though at least some of them would get paid beforehand), but that isn't the point. The point is that the number of subsequently discredited comments from Carter, Spotnitz, Anderson, and Duchovny about this movie must be in the low hundreds by now--and ultimately, Anderson and Duchovny's discredited comments have to be assumed to stem from conversations they've had with Carter, as they have confirmed on many occasions. They all stand to make money from an X-Files movie, whether it succeeds or not, but they don't have the power to greenlight one. That's why their comments are less credible than comments from 20th Century Fox, and it's ridiculous to excise that Wired article link one second before the studio confirms that Anderson and Duchovny are signed, and that the movie has gotten a formal go-ahead. I note with amusement you have an unnamed source who tells you the movie is going forward. You should probably footnote that as "somebody I talked to whose name and job I can't tell you, but sure knows more than xfpisher, I bet, so there". :D Xfpisher 15:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Btw, funny coincidence, and I SWEAR am not making this up--I just heard from an online friend of mine who has a friend who works at 20th Century Fox and what this secret unnamed source (who has been fairly optimistic about an X-Files movie in the past) says is that the studio isn't interested in working with Chris Carter and that movie isn't going anywhere. And you know what place rumors like that have in a Wikipedia article? None. But my shadowy unverified source cancels out yours. Nyahhhh! Xfpisher 00:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate everything you're saying, but most of it is inconsequential. It doesn't matter how reliable Carter's claims have been in the past, not to mention what a debatable subject that is -- for example, unofficial claims of future release dates are known to be unrealistically ambitious, when coming from anyone. But none of it matters. We're here to state the facts. Your wording in the article possesses something that's known as "editorial slant." Saying that TV guide reported something and then saying AFTERWARD that "two months earlier" something else happened that might be interpreted as evidence to the contrary... that is slanting the facts to suit your opinion. I'm keeping the facts you added but putting them into more neutral words. Let me know what you think.

PS I don't know what statement you're referring to about the unnamed source. Could you be more specific? If there really is something unreferenced I'll remove it myself. Equazcion 01:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

E, sorry if I misunderstood, but in the list of edits, someone (I had thought it was you?) specifically says he or she has heard from an unnamed source that the movie is in the works--I never said that you or anyone had added unsourced information to the article itself. And btw, I hadn't done that either. I'm fine with the way the passage stands now. I just don't like to see sourced and relevant information removed--particularly when I'm the one who added it. Perhaps we misunderstood each other? I'm a true X-Phile, even if I can't stand the show itself anymore--I just want to get at The Truth. My edits are never malicious, and I'm more than happy to compromise. For one thing, it saves a lot of time and bother. For another, nobody ever has a monopoly on the truth. Shall we leave it for now? Duchovny will surely be doing a lot of interviews to promote his new series on Showtime. Perhaps the matter will be clarified shortly. Though being more of a Scullyist, I greatly doubt it.  ;)

Wasn't me who said anything about an unnamed source. Yes I'm fine with leaving it for now, until we hear more. However, one more thing, and I mentioned this in my original post here, could you please provide edit summaries in the future? It's common courtesy among editors, so that we don't have to compare page versions to see what you did. Thanks. And here's hoping we do hear more on this project soon. Equazcion 02:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to remember that, as long as it's a significant edit. I'm usually just tweaking, but I'll point out significant tweaks.

Well, I just added some information. Completely sourced, completely factual, but obviously somebody could put a more positive spin on it. And after more than five years of Duchovny making overly optimistic statements about an X-Files movie, I would just like to say it's not a good idea to put a more positive spin on it. This page doesn't exist to promote anyone's career--or, it should go without saying, to do the opposite. It seems odd to me that there just happens to be some vaguely positive news when Duchovny just happens to be promoting a new series. This has happened an awful lot. Even the people talking to him seemed a bit incredulous. I added an edit summary to the final tweak. Xfpisher 18:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the new info. I edited it mostly to include additional info from the reference, and for wording, but some neutrality as well. You had added that he said he and Anderson were "signed on," but he never said that at all. You also said that there's no word on a green light or contract signings, but there's no need to report on what didn't happen. The reader knows that if we had news of either of those events we would've mentioned them. Equazcion 20:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality requires context, otherwise the reader who hasn't been following this story closely is going to be misled. Duchovny's earlier movie comments, all discredited by events, have been stricken from the article, so it's important to make it clear that the only thing new here is that Duchovny thinks he's getting a script to read in the next week or so. He says his previous comments were wrong because he was just repeating what he was told by Chris Carter, but that's all he's doing NOW. I think my latest edit is perfectly fair and neutral, and since I've gone to the trouble of finding new sources, I'd like to see it respected for now. If Duchovny is right this time, we'll have direct confirmation from the studio, very shortly. If that isn't forthcoming, it's yet another false lead. Btw, please note--Duchovny said nothing about signing a contract. Carter's reported TV Guide comments about having signed Duchovny and Anderson to be in the movie are now cast in a very dubious light, because a signed contract is worth a lot more in Hollywood than a finished script. Finished scripts are used for drink coasters in that town. Xfpisher 15:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The events described in the reference speak for themselves. The reporters were skeptical for the same reasons, and Duchovny responded to them. His response already describes his past claims, so I don't think here's a need to tell of those again, but I've left that in just in case his quote wasn't clear enough in illustrating them. I just copy edited the wording to make it less of a run-on sentence. I also clarified what exactly is being reported by Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, as well as what is not. Equazcion 17:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The reporters were skeptical because Duchovny has always been wrong in the past, and only collaterally because of the implausible potential release date he gave them. He was responding directly to their skepticism connected to his own discredited statements--but he's done that before, frequently--he's always tried to make it sound like THIS time he's got the straight dope, and it's always come in the context of promoting a Non-XF project. Both actors have frequently been reported as saying they are 'onboard' with the movie, and it's not a meaningful phrase. "I've just signed a contract with 20th Century Fox to play Fox Mulder in the upcoming X-Files movie" would mean something, and if he had done that, he'd say so--it would be the single most effective means for him to quiet that skepticism from the press. The actors have made it very clear, over and over, since 1998, that they are ready to sign on the dotted line the moment 20th Century Fox makes them an offer on a second X-Files movie--and if they don't say they've signed on the dotted line, that means there hasn't been a solid offer yet. Honestly, Carter's TV Guide comments should be stricken--they don't contribute anything new. But I'll refrain from further edits for the time being--thanks for being reasonable, in spite of our disagreements.Xfpisher 17:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to explain why you're skeptical. I understand it and even share it somewhat. It's just a question of what belongs in an encyclopedia article. In this case the facts are the events, and we're here to report them accurately and in their entirety. Their effect on peoples' expectations of the future are secondary, and somewhat unavoidable, because people will interpret what they will and we must let them. As tempting as it is to say, "Regardless of the fact that this person said this and this, take my word for it, it doesn't mean piddly shit," we just can't do that -- or anything close to it. Regardless, we have stated the context of Duchovny's past statements being unfruitful. We can't take out Carter's TV Guide comment as you suggest though -- simply because of the fact that it happened. How reliable a statement it is will be up to the reader, and we can't decide to remove it just because we think people will give it credence that we might believe is undue. Equazcion 18:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The 'facts' are not simply what people with a vested interest in this movie say they are--you have to include all the facts. And in fact, so many past comments that 'happened', and are just as 'factual', have been removed from that section in the past, otherwise it would be longer than all the other sections combined--I'm just saying leave them all in, or just have the ones that haven't been discredited. Carter's comments are now discredited. If Duchovny had been signed to appear in the movie, he'd say so, because it would quiet any doubts as to whether there really was solid progress being made. Carter made a vague comment to TV Guide about Duchovny and Anderson being ready to appear in the movie, as they always have been. TV Guide made it sound like it was something new, but it wasn't. Am I going to edit that into the article? Of course not, but we both know I'm right. Whether the movie goes forward or not, there will come a point when it becomes obvious that at the time Carter spoke to TV Guide, neither Anderson nor Duchovny had been signed to appear in this movie. And in that case, Carter didn't say anything worth mentioning (for example, he didn't say 20th Century Fox had approved the script). Obviously the real question is whether 20th Century Fox is going to like Carter's script enough to risk letting him direct it, when he has no feature directing experience at all, and hasn't managed to get any project off the ground since The X-Files was canceled (and not for want of trying, either). But I won't edit out Carter's paraphrased comments--I'm just putting it on record that you're letting a discredited comment stand. There are no contracts, and the actors are only 'signed on' in the metaphoric sense. Over the years, they've been reported as being 'onboard', 'signed-on', etc--when they actually have solid signed contracts to do the movie, they'll SAY SO. Xfpisher 18:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you've got an inherent distrust for what Carter says. Maybe Variety and Hollywood Reporter do too, and maybe that's why they didn't report on his TV Guide comment. But they did see fit to report Duchovny's comments now. I trust their judgment more than I trust yours. Hell, I trust TV Guide's more than yours too. From a newsworthiness stance at least. I'm sure your opinions aren't without merit, but you're proving to be way too emotional about this to be seen as objective, and most of this ranting about Carter's past blunders do not affect how we report recent events. And we don't need to keep in all the old comments just to show everything else he's tried to do and failed. The section does already note the fact that a second movie was claimed to have been in development as early as 2004, so the fact that those claims turned out to be inaccurate is already apparent, and the reader will compare those versus the recent statements and make their decision. But if you want to see old comments take a look at the X-Files 2 main article, I believe nothing has ever been deleted there at all. This section is just a summary of that one. Equazcion 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't have an inherent distrust for what Carter says hasn't been paying attention. Carter's TV Guide comments were disregarded because they contained no new information. Duchovny's were reported because 1)It's the TCA and 2)a completed script is new information, even though Duchovny hasn't seen it yet--and it's an interesting coincidence that he just happened to have apparently new information in time for the TCA, isn't it? That's happened an awful lot over the past five years. It's really not about trust, E--but why trust people who have a motive to stretch the truth? Why trust writers who are simply reporting what they were told, and have clearly been unable to find any confirming sources elsewhere? It's about understanding the difference between hopeful statements from people who stand to make a lot of money if this movie gets made, and a total lack of statements from the people who stand to lose a lot of money if this movie gets made and doesn't do well. The only comments that mean anything are the ones from 20th Century Fox, and a few weeks ago, they were saying they were nowhere near signing Anderson and Duchovny (which is the same thing as saying they're nowhere near greenlighting the movie). What Duchovny DIDN'T say was pretty interesting--he didn't say he'd been signed. People are challenging him about whether he's just BSing them again, and if he had a contract, he could shut them up easily by revealing he's got a contract. Don't take my word for it. I could be wrong. Maybe FOX is dumb enough to greenlight this film. But when they do, they'll SAY SO. Btw, I checked out the XF2 article--I don't know if they've deleted past comments, but they've sure left out a lot of past comments--it's a very poor history of the endless rumor-mill surrounding this movie. Too bad an article to fix, really. I won't even bother.Xfpisher 13:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Good.

Yes, anyone who doesn't share your point of view must be wrong.

There might even be some truth to that, but again — it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.

What we put in encyclopedia articles is the same stuff the major publications saw fit to report. No more, and no less.

That's our only criteria. All this other stuff is just fluff to talk about around the water cooler. It's called original research.

You and I will continue to have these things influence our opinions, but it has about as much legitimate bearing on this article as a baloney sandwich.

Equazcion 15:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

E, what's with this 'we'? This is Wikipedia, and you don't belong to some special board of super-editors. I'm part of 'we'--as evidenced by the fact that you've basically just rewritten what I've contributed for this section recently--and did a decent enough job, which is why I'm leaving things as they are for now. But it's ludicrous to say that you don't leave anything out. Clint Morris on Moviehole recently said a source at FOX told him that the X-Files movie wasn't going anywhere. That comment got deleted, even though all subsequent comments have done nothing to discredit the notion that enthusiasm for this project is running low at 20th Century Fox. What subsequent comments prove is that Carter, Duchovny, et al, are worried they might lose a big payday, and are scrambling to get support. If 20th Century Fox was so all-fired-up about this movie, it would be on DVD by now. Carter's lawsuit wasn't an issue for most of the past five years--it gets trotted out as a reason for the movie not happening, but that's ignoring the more serious problems that 1)The X-Files isn't anywhere near as popular as it used to be, 2)Duchovny and Anderson are not any kind of a draw at the box office and 3)the FOX movie people hate Chris Carter for the way he treated them during the making of the last X-Files movie. Stop complaining about what does or doesn't belong in the article--this isn't the article. This is the discussion section, and we're DISCUSSING stuff. Xfpisher 17:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if you're not trying to argue for what should be in the article, then I have no problem with anything you're saying. "We" is Wikipedians, and I speak for them only as far as describing the rules that apply to us all, put forth by Wikipedia. Furthermore I think that if Clint Morris made a recent and relevant comment, and you added it, then I probably would not have been the one to delete it — if I did then I apologize — and you should add it again. Equazcion 18:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's just leave it for a few weeks, and see if Duchovny clarifies things any further in the process of promoting his TV show. Though that hasn't been what happened the last few times he had projects to promote. Xfpisher 20:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Chris Carter just shot down everything Duchovny said--even though everything Duchovny said came from Chris Carter. So it's all back to square one. Again. Wow. How surprising. Who could have predicted such a strange sequence of events? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xfpisher (talk • contribs)

I don't respond to sarcasm. If you'd like to have a frank discussion then please feel free to restate your observations.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

01:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to type those little squiggly things. As to the (very mild) sarcasm, --guess I can't blame you for being prickly and irritable, under the circumstances--I've been through this so many times before, I'm used to it. You'll learn. Btw, we don't know what date Carter was interviewed--you make it sound like it was ON August 1st. Could have been a few days earlier. And Carter's comments about having 'signed' Duchovny and Anderson are now impossible to believe--either he misspoke, misled, or was misquoted. They have obviously not signed binding contracts with 20th Century Fox. I'll give some thought as to how to fix your edits. Take care.96.224.34.207 11:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not nearly as emotionally invested in this project as you are. I simply don't respond to sarcasm, in any venue -- especially here. This is not a chat room. As for not having signed contracts? No one ever said they did. You're just assuming that's what Carter meant when he said it. Saying that he was being "misleading" is a conclusion based on your assumptions; which you're free to insert if you like, but as I'm sure you're used to by now, I'll be removing them the moment I see them. As for the date, all we know is when it was reported, which is how I worded it.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

11:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

E, you're the most emotional person here, as evidenced by your angry response, which is simply to go into denial-mode. And I can remove things too--in fact, you have no specific authority here. How much is this becoming a personal vendetta for you? You do what you've got to do, but I won't stop making changes that need to be made. Events have proven my interpretation to be correct, and you need to be a little less Tony Snow-ish about the matter.Xfpisher 11:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Explain to me how this is an 'aspiration'--Anderson's exact comment--

//But now The X Files legal wrangles have now been resolved and speaking to The Independent last night from a film festival in Italy, Anderson confirmed that she was set to begin filming sometime between October and January. "The script is imminent and we are meant to start doing it by the end of next year and beginning of this year," she said.// It's neither an aspiration or a confirmation--it's a discredited statement from somebody who has repeatedly explained she is out of the loop regarding this project. It was a violation of Wikipedian neutrality to say she'd confirmed anything. She was wrong. Period. Duchovny was wrong. Carter, otoh, was simply being Carter. My reaction is the reaction of any objective person looking at the facts. Yours--well, you tell me.Xfpisher 12:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal about this at all. I'm simply keeping this a neutral article. I'm sure you think your interpretation is correct, and it could very well be. But it's far from proven, and therefore has nothing to do with the article.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

12:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing this comment--okay, I've seen your latest edit--I'll accept your latest change. Even though it serves no particular purpose, other than to make you feel better. If you refrain from further changes, so will I. Until, of course, reality demands them.Xfpisher 12:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps your reaction is the reaction of any normal, objective person. But reactions don't belong in the article. That's the vital point you seem to be missing.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

12:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The vital point you are missing is that your edits make the article less informative and less accurate. And that my edits wouldn't raise an eyebrow at most Wikipedia articles, including many rated far more highly than this one.Xfpisher 12:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this comment. "I usually get away with it" is no argument. NPOV means to avoid drawing conclusions. The only conclusions we're allowed to draw are the ones that authors on reputable websites have already drawn. I'm sure that if there's a consensus among editors then many non-neutral and/or unsourced comments are allowed to stay, since they seem "obvious" to everyone involved. But that's not the case here. Your conclusions are not everyone else's conclusions, so I'll ask that we stick to what we can reference. Please try to understand that what seems obvious to you is still just your opinion, and doesn't reflect facts or a consensus.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

18:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My last edit summary got cut off. You should look more carefully at that page you linked to. It does list the project. In other words, for when you actually look at this, Carter's IMDb page does list this project, so please stop saying it doesn't.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

12:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It ONLY lists him as director. Not as producer, not as writer. Even though Carter's only contribution so far has been to work on a script (which he still hasn't finished, or which has been sent back for rewrites, whichever). That doesn't strike you as odd? I'll let that go for now. But I'll keep editing in the needed comment that the conflict between Carter's statements and those of his actors has not been explained. You haven't remotely explained why that violates any guidelines. You just don't like it. Or maybe you just don't like me?  ;)Xfpisher 12:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

See the next newly-created section below for my response --

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

12:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference cleanup

Most of the web references in this article are a mess. They contain dates and author information, but they're all formatted manually with italics and links etc, instead of using the standardized {{citeweb}} template. Help improve the article's quality by converting the existing ref tags to their standardized form. The article has been nominated for being featured and the messy references will hinder that. See Template:Citeweb and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The X-Files. Equazcion 22:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've begun converting these refs as part of a massive revamp of the article. I've gotten through roughly half of the references that needed fixing, so there are still a lot more. Feel free to help out with the effort. See Template:Citeweb for info on making the standardized citations. If everyone fixes one or two citations that would probably take care of them all... Equazcion 21:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Early logistics subsection title

The season 1 section is just way too long. There's a reason it's longer than the other seasons' sections, and that's because it contains descriptions of the early behind-the-scenes production problems. The reason the subsection title belongs in that particular place is because the description goes back to the beginning at that point, and discusses things encompassing the entire season, from the beginning, rather than continuing. And most of the info from that point on is more behind-the-scenes, production-centric, dealing with problems, as I said. Anyway, we can't leave season 1 as one huge section, so until someone finds a more universally agreeable way to split it up, let's leave it this way for now. Equazcion 11:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, all the sections are equally fucking huge. In fact season 5 looks longer than 1, and also has commentary about the production of the movie and how that impacted episodes of season 5. So to be consistent we would need a tiny "Logistics of the movie" subsection there and then "Season 5 - continued" lol.

The way it is now, there's kind of a wobbly flow that sounds ok but not a whole lot of consistency in the way each section is organized. None of them are exactly chronological. Each season seems to take its own form now- season 3 starts out talking about the mythology and then the monster of the weeks which dominated the season, before moving back to the late mythology to keep a sense of chronology. Season 4 moves mostly chronologically except there's a sentence mentioning episodes that used Covarrubias, "personal" Mulder episodes, and such, which leads to many forward/backward jumps in the order episodes are mentioned. Which I think is a good idea- since we don't want to present it from "in universe" or have just a glorified episode list. But there should perhaps be more consistent organization of the information imo. I see what you mean in season 1. It starts out on defining the mythology, moves to defining monster of the week, then uses the behind the scenes events as a way of mentioning all the other important episodes of the season in random order. But that part still really deals with season one episodes. I think it's a better idea to have a logistics section for the few paragraphs that were at the end of season 1, which really relate to the entire series, and list the important crew members and their contributions. (I renamed it "Early production issues" but hopefully someone comes up with a better name than either of these.) Also this section could eventually be combined with that sort of information found in season 6, for a separate end section on behind the scenes crew. 172.145.175.111 12:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning "Unofficial mythology"

To explain my edit: the mythology DVD series can't be considered the sole definition of mythology, even from the producers' standpoint. So it's not right to imply that the unofficial list is determined by a group of fanboys/girls who love certain episodes. There was a limit of 15 episodes per DVD, and four DVDs, and they had to have nearly equal representation of each season even when some have more mythology episodes. It's not possible to include everything, and there could be certain reasons certain things are picked over others.

I'm not talking about things like Musings, where its mythology status is intentionally debatable. What I was trying to get at is that when originally aired, episodes like Christmas Carol/Emily would have been considered mythology episodes by any fan, critic OR by the producers. They were intentionally tapping into the mytharc storyline and they were promoted in advertisements and interviews as the official follow-ups to previous myth episodes. It was only due to the poor viewer reaction to the direction those episodes seemed to lead the mythology, that the producers decided they would try to ignore the events that took place there in the future, without ever denying them. They aren't even necessarily denying they're part of the story, just saying they're not essential for the new viewers that DVD set aims for.

The same thing applies for Conduit- as it was only the first episode to deal with the subject of Samantha, some of what it says was later contradicted when they thought better of it. But that's rewriting history, at the time it was a key in establishing the existence of a "mythology" in the first place- and anyway there are also discrepancies with the later mythology in Pilot, Deep Throat, Fallen Angel, the early myth eps that ARE on the DVDs. 172.145.175.111 13:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"What I was trying to get at is that when originally aired, episodes like Christmas Carol/Emily would have been considered mythology episodes by any fan, critic OR by the producers."

→ I know what you were trying to get at. You just haven't given any proof of it. You basically claim that everyone including the producers agree on this — well I already know that's what you think, but you need to prove it as well. This is simply a matter of opinion. Just because you really feel that everyone must agree on this doesn't make it true. The fact remains that the only referenceable information we have is the DVDs. Anything else is, as far as an encyclopedia is concerned, precisely as you said: something concocted by fans. You make distinctions between Musings and other episodes, saying what was intentional and what was not... these claims have absolutely no basis in reality. You can't base any decision regarding an encyclopedia article on them. Your lines of reasoning only include what happens in the episodes as proof that they must be part of the mythology, but that's the very definition of original research. It doesn't matter how strongly you feel. If you make a claim that the producers had a certain intention, you have to reference a quote that backs it up — not just say, "well how could anyone possibly see it any other way?"

I even agree about the Emily storyline originally being intended as part of the mythology, however:

• A) We have no proof of it. I realize I must not place unreferenced information in an encyclopedia article, no matter how strongly I feel about it.
• B) The two episodes dealing with Emily would be the only ones with that "unquestionable" intent. The others in unofficial list, I don't even think you agree were intended that way, yet you made that claim for the entire list.

Not that any of this matters. We only place info that we can back up. We must recognize our personal opinions as original research, and keep them where they belong — outside of an encyclopedia. The unofficial list in and of itself has questionable merit in an encyclopedia article — let's not make it even worse by claiming to know that the producers agree with us on it. Equazcion 17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

An unsourced unofficial list does have questionable merit, but so does privileging the creators' categories for their own product with the only source being that mythology DVD. Yes, if we accept that there is such a thing as "mythology" and non-"mythology" episodes, we have to emphasize the producers' view of what falls in each, because they invented the categories- one could say the categories have no meaning other than what the creator(s) say. However, the DVD cannot just be allowed to speak for itself, BECAUSE it is not contemporaneous with the episode air dates. It's effectively a "best of" the mythology, and for all we know even Carter didn't have full say over what went on there (not to mention the space limitations). This is why it's important to mention the release date being 2005. That's 3 years after the show went off air. The concept of "mythology" dates to 10+ years before that DVD came out, from comments by the producers. Some episodes were made that advanced the mythology at the time, and I don't mean the frequent "teases" like Paper Hearts or Demons, but the ones that were clearly intended to make new, real revelations (examples can be given of reviews or producer comments from the time for each of those) only to later prove contradictory to later decisions the producers wanted to make. That's why I think at the very least we should retitle the "Mythology episodes" section "Mythology DVDs" so it only claims to list what was chosen for the discs, and not to provide objective encyclopedic coverage of what various different producers or critics or viewers may have considered mythology at any time when, you know, the show was actually on. If it's clearly a regurgitation of the DVD content, rather than trying to make a comprehensive list of all episodes that could be considered mythology, that will also leave it closed to personal POVs with adding more random episodes into the "unofficial" list. Anyway, I'm sorry for the harsh tone and if what you're upset about is the lack of sources, sorry for that. I know the sources for my point can be found, and not just for Xmas Carol/Emily, because I added a lot of sources to this article in the past and I found many producer interviews/assessments that treat the events of the listed episodes are part of the mythology (Musings is in its own category, since Carter doesn't think it's "true" and the writers/directors of the episode did). It's a bit problematic to define an artistic or entertainment product to mean only what the creators say it means years after the fact, even for such a minor issue as this. I'm done editing that section, I don't want to start an edit war.

• Yes, we do give the producers the privilege of categorizing their own episodes, because not only did they make the episodes but they invented the categories as well. That gives them full rights, because they are the ultimate authority on what the category is and how to interpret what belongs in it. They invented the distinction to begin with.
• The DVDs are not "effectively" a "best-of." That's just your view of it. The DVDs are what their title says they are.
• We don't know what Carter had a say in. We deal only in what we know and what we can reference. We know the title and description of a DVD set credited with the show's creators. And we can reference it. Until we have referenced information from a different reliable source that says something more specific or contrary, we take it as-is. You're saying that it's questionable to present the DVDs as the definitive mythology episodes because of the circumstances surrounding their compilation, like the involvement of the creators and the time period in which they were made, but these are only speculations. You're asking unwarranted questions. There's no reason, from an encyclopedic standpoint, to question what the DVDs are and how reliable a source they are.

→"the ones that were clearly intended to make new, real revelations (examples can be given of reviews or producer comments from the time for each of those)"←

• New real revelations do not a mythology episode make. This was my point a while back. Some episodes intentionally included mythology elements to make the standalone episodes more continuous with the mytharc episodes, yes even including significant revelations, but who's to say that's what makes a mythology episode? In fact I disagree entirely. To me a mythology episode is one whose main plot is all about aliens and the government plot. I even disagree with some of the choices in the DVDs - like Red Museum. But my disagreement means absolutely nothing. So does yours. You need to recognize that neither of us are an authority. Nothing makes an episode mythology other than a credited person saying it. So until a producer comes forward saying, "This episode wasn't on the DVD set but it's mythology," there's no argument.
• As for the section title, regurgitating the Mythology DVD contents is the same as saying which episodes are mythology. They are synonymous. Which is good, because the point of the section is to list the mythology episodes for those who want to know. The point is not to catalog the contents of a DVD set. The point is to list the mythology episodes. We luckily have an excellent and incontrovertible source for this information — but the section still serves its original purpose.
• I would say you have a point about what the value of art is, despite what the artist intended — but in this case, we're dealing with a distinction that was created and defined by the producers. There just can't be any question of their authority on the subject in this case, no matter how you look at it.
• PS. You really need to provide references when you make edits. Saying something like, "...originally presented as...by the producers," is really just not something you should put in with no reference. The same goes for that edit you made for the X-Files 2 article, I don't remember it exactly but you said "various sources who might have something to do with the movie if it happens said filming won't start until 2008," you have to see how that's ridiculously vague. If you're gonna say people said something you need to at least tell us who said it and where to find it.

Equazcion 15:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

201 or 202?

Someone changed it to 202 episodes today and I changed it back. A bit later someone changed it to 202 again and added a "reference" to tv.com. So which one should we use? Personally, I prefer 201 since that's the number of episodes aired and the number released on DVD. The fact that they cut up the last one in two for repeats and sales to other stations shouldn't factor into it. If people still want to go with 202, a better reference would be needed. Tv.com changes the number of episodes based on how they're available on iTunes. Just look at the Battlestar Galactica (2003) mini-series... Davhorn 23:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't notice that the 202 number was due to the last episode being split. I think the number should be based on how many originally aired. I'm changing it back. Equazcion 23:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)