Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/The X-Files task force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Roles

Just giving you a note here on what I can do, guys. I don't have any text sources, so what I know comes just from watching the episodes and/or special features. However, I'm a fairly good writer, so I would propose that I run through articles after they are created and fix for either readability or plot details. Sound acceptable? ThirteenOfTwo (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me! I've got plenty of text sources which I've used throughout; copyedits of the articles are always useful though, and even without text sources, enough research online can assist with at least beefing up the reception sections of the articles, which could certainly use some more work before these articles can reach 'Good Article' level quality. Quiddity99 (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99

The X-Files episode redirects to lists: category vs template

Which is preferred, Category:The X-Files episode redirects to lists or {{ER to list entry|The X-Files}}? I've been fixing broken episode redirects, and had been adding the template where missing, but now I wonder if it is deprecated. -- ToE^T 01:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked this question over at Template talk:ER to list entry#Template vs category and the template method was strongly recommended over direct categorization. -- ToE^T 03:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In a somewhat related question, do you have a category for redirects to article episodes, such as E.B.E. (The X-Files), or is there no need to keep track of them that way? -- ToE^T 11:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We had it, but someone removed it. --TIAYN (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to keep track on redirects to articles. --TIAYN (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I myself prefer the single article for episodes, namely those pertaining the Mytharc, as I'm probably going to work on the series. Plus I myself plan to do a summary for missing overall episodes I have seen (raganbaby_6 20:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by raganbaby_6 (talk • contribs)

Recurring characters on season pages

I think that under the cast section for the different season, there should be a place where the recurring characters for that season are listed. I've tried to do this for the first two seasons, but each time it gets changed. I think it is important information to have on the pages because thos characters are important to the season, story, and/or characters.J52y (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We have the List of characters in The X-Files for that. --TIAYN (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

But, thats a broad page that isn't season specific. I mean, why list the cast at all on the season pages, then? Everyone knows that Mulder and Scully are in the season. Knowing who the recurring characters are in the season gives more information. J52y (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

But wikipedia is not suppose to be excessive. And since we have over 100 episodes articles based on The X-Files, their is no need. --TIAYN (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding Mulder under "Family" on CSM's page

Hey guys. I raised an issue on the The Smoking Man article. Currently on the CSM page, only Jeffery Spender and Cassandra Spender are listed under "Family". I propose that Mulder should be added to the list, as CSM's son.

More info on my proposal here: Talk:The_Smoking_Man#Spoiler:_CSM_is_Mulder.27s_Father._Not_in_article.3F.

I'd like to get some kind of consensus before I add it to the article. Thanks!

Lex Kitten (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Even though the episodes in question have been around for a while, I'd still be wary of adding those sort of spoilers without a warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euchrid (talk • contribs) 00:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Updates to TV#MOS

I'm not sure how many people monitor WP:MOSTV or even WP:TV (the basic WikiProject for all of us), but we've been trying to get some feedback on additions to the TV Manual of Style. It largely has to do with the inclusion of "Overview" tables at the start of the page, the order in which season lists are presented (currently, there is no concrete order), and what is considered too much info for DVDs (i.e. should we be placing every detail about the box set in the article, from each interview to the aspect ratio, or should be keep it more generalized). Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV#Updates to the MOS. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The X-Files articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the The X-Files articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Unassessed article

Though I'm probably talking to no one in particular, it's worth pointing out that Men in Black (The X-Files) remains unassessed. It should probably be considered a list, in which case I'm not sure how the gradings apply, but at present it's currently a ???-class article, and having heavily redrafted it myself, it's probably not the best idea for me personally to grade it. Is anyone else still involved with this WikiProject who might be able to look at it? GRAPPLE X 22:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Listing mythology episodes

The season articles use a two-star system to denote core episodes belonging to the mythology, and those which contribute to it somewhat. However, given that there's no real criteria for demarcation, it has led to some disagreement when it comes to individual episodes, and also falls somewhat into the realm of original research. I propose that the two-star system simply be replaced by a single marker, listing only those episodes which have been released on the "X-Files Mythology" DVD sets - that serves as a more official stance on things, and follows the Wikipedia principle of reporting recorded information rather than interpreting it ourselves. It would simply entail listing those episodes included on the DVDs with one asterisk, or perhaps another marker such as a superscript letter M (it doesn't really matter I guess), and amending the explanatory note to explain that these are the episodes considered by the producers to belong to the mythology proper. Thoughts? GRAPPLE X 12:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's too much original research to be honest. I looked in some books I have and mythology is discussed at length and various episodes are mentioned. However they don't all mention the same episodes, and there's certainly no definitive list. I'm personally not sure even about the DVD marker because it makes me think why denote episodes from those DVD sets and not others? We should either mark all official DVD set releases, or none. I don't actually know how many there have been, but there was one called Revelations for example, that featured eight mostly non-mytharc episodes. I think the mythology aspect can be covered by the Mythology of The X-Files article (which needs work; currently seems to rely on primary sources) as well as prose within the season articles. --BelovedFreak 17:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying about original research, but to put things in perspective here... we're talking about an asterisk, not paragraphs of cruft, or long unverifiable weasel statements. I've been watching the mytharc episodes, as I was confused by them when first watching the series. I'd miss some, and get lost as to the story threads, especially as it changed over seasons. I can say now that most of the single asterisk episodes definitely fit into the mytharc category (as well as a couple with no asterisk at all, such as Avatar). Many do not involve monsters of the week at all, but instead fill out events related to the mythology. They feature the recurring mythology characters, and refer to events mentioned in former mythology episodes, as well as setting up events for later ones. I'm sure the people choosing what went onto to the mythology DVDs had to limit the number to be included, just as people compiling "greatest hits" albums have to be selective. I would think there should be secondary sources that at least talk about subject matter in those episodes, even if they don't say "this officially is a mythology episode." I know there are many things that Wikipedia is not, but this seems just a snippet of information that some people might actually find useful in an encyclopedic way. — Parsa (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"most of the single episodes..." "as well as a couple with no asterisk at all" - it sounds like even you're not 100% in agreement with the labelling, so who gets to decide? If there's some kind of decision/judgement to be made where people might disagree, then it's not what we'd call "obvious information", and could easily be challenged; it needs to be supported by a reliable source. Yes of course we want to provide useful information, but in my opinion the best way of doing that in this situation would be to greatly improve the Mythology of The X-Files article so that it provides a proper overview of the mythology, and includes scholarly discussion from reliable sources (which I know exists).

As far as going by the DVD set designation, I still don't think we should be "showcasing" (for want of a better word) one DVD set and not others. I'll let you into a little secret, I'm not really that interested in the mythology, especially in the later seasons where it got ever more convoluted. I prefer the comedy episodes and the ones that focused more on character development. (Yeah, I'm such a girl!) This is not me making an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, but as a reader, I would personally prefer to see the "Revelations" DVD set highlighted than the mytharc ones. It's entirely possible that I'm not the only one, so I don't think we should be telling readers which sets Wikipedia considers important. Readers do have the opportunity to read about the DVD sets themselves, and see the episodes included (eg. The X-Files Mythology, Volume 1 – Abduction).

If we could find somewhere a "definitive" list set out by Carter, or the producers/writers/ whatever of episodes that are part of the mytharc, then I would be all for highlighting them. In the absence of an official list, I think we should leave them unmarked. --BelovedFreak 09:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for a definitive list, that's not how Wikipedia works. The fact The X-Files features "Monster of the Week" episodes and Mytharc" episodes is a widely recognized feature of the series. Being as such, it is possible, by reading the extensive coverage of The X-Files by experts in the media, to determine which episodes are considered to fall into which category. The fact that some lists might be different than others does not pervade creation of a consensus-based list of episodes. Indeed, this is EXACTLY what we do on Wikipedia: read among various expert sources which conflict, and synthesize their diverse perspectives into a critical, objective, encyclopedic summary. This is far from original research. I perfectly understand why people would not like the use of the asterisks, especially fans of the series, who infer that the asterisk use elevates some episodes above others as more important. Unfortunately, serving the opinions of X-Files fans is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia, it is to deliver information that is widely regarded as important. And as it pertains to the X-Files, the use of Monster of the Week and Mytharc stories is WIDELY considered one of THE MOST characteristic features of the series. Being as such, offering a critical synthesis of opinion on which episodes are widely regarded as Mytharc vs. Monster-of-the-Week is a valuable service to those who are curious concerning this widely cited and widely discussed feature of the series. The suggestion that because sources can disagree on details, that therefore this is not obvious information, is completely ludicrous. If this were the case there would simply be no Wikipedia at all on ANY subject whatsoever. MarcelB612 (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A delineation of mytharc vs monster-of-the-week does exist for episodes, listed in the episode articles themselves, though at present this is limited to those which have articles written to a solid quality (myself and Igordebraga have worked through seasons 1 and 2 thus far and several others have been fixed individually). Compare Tooms and E.B.E., for instance. However, the old system of grouping articles into several "tiers" of mytharc involvement is much too reliant on flat-out original research - the one and two asterisk approach links episodes such as Conduit to the mytharc due to its use of Samantha Mulder in the background - but then again, this is also strongly (perhaps more strongly) present in Miracle Man, which isn't listed as such. The episode William was given two asterisks, and hinges solely on Scully's child (a relatively tangential subplot for the series), whilst episodes concerning the history of the X-Files unit such as Shapes, Travellers or The Unnatural, receive one or none. Essentially, this boils down to an unsolvable problem - what definivitely is and is not a mytharc episode? It's better to simply mention in each episode's article that it is or isn't connected to the wider mytharc, and allow readers to place the relevant plots in context - obviously The Erlenmeyer Flask will seem much more important to the mytharc than The Host, and they'll see that clearly. GRAPPLE X 03:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think the idea of using an asterisk is a good idea, but we need a way to cite it. I think, as the first poster suggested, only marking the ones released under the "Mythology" DVD sets is a great idea. The only problem I can see with this is that some episodes feature mythology elements, but aren't overtly mythological (like "The Unnautral") whereas others are monster-of-the-weeks but have elements of the myth-arc (like "The Host").--Gen. Quon (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

But why highlight one DVD collection and not others? Who are we to decide which sets are important to highlight? If we don't go by which are included in the DVD set, then it's original research. There is ample discussion of the mytharc in the literature, but I doubt there is any one definitive list of which episodes "count". As you say, some of them include some of the mythology but aren't part of the mytharc. We could add a citation for each asterisk to a reliable source stating that the episode is part of the mytharc, but then what about the ones without asterisks? How can you cite the absence of any such statement? It's unlikely we'd be able to find WP:RS for each one stating that it's not part of the mytharc. I also suspect that reliable sources would disagree. I don't see how we could do this without straying into WP:SYNTH. I think readers will have to rely on actually reading the individual episode articles and articles like Mythology of The X-Files. A lot of good work has been done lately on episode articles (Grapple X has nearly single-handedly turned Season 1 into a good topic candidate). Obviously, there's a lot more work to be done, but eventually all the information readers need should be there in the prose. Yes, it would be a nice little feature to have an asterisk for each mytharc episode, but I don't see how we can achieve that while keeping within policies & guidelines. --BelovedFreak 08:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty easy to tell which episodes are connected to the myth-arc and which are not, so it is hardly original research to put a symbol next to the episode saying which are and which aren't. It's like saying we need to have a reference for the fact that oranges are orange, or other mundane facts such as these. Maybe having two symbols is not such a good idea, but at least have one! At the moment I now have to go into each episode to see if it is related to the mythology or not, whereas before it was conveniently placed on the episode lists. At least one symbol should be restored, because their omission removes a useful aspect of the episode listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.230.65 (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Images for XF directors Bowman and Manners

Hi XF project editors. I'm hoping you can help me. I'm collecting sources and other material to improve the articles for Rob Bowman and Kim Manners. What I would really like is a good quality image of each of them to include on their articles. So far, I haven't found anything good. Can anybody help? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Since Manners passed away a few years ago, non-free files are acceptable to illustrate his article, as free alternatives aren't expected to be available (they might exist, but it's unlikely). As such, images like this should be grand. Bowman's another matter, being alive means it's expected that free images can still be taken of him. Given that he's currently working on Castle, he might appear at press events or conventions in support of it. If you could find out ahead of time where such a thing might be, it might be possible to find another editor who's willing to take a picture of him. GRAPPLE X 02:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration?

Is everyone still happy to keep bashing away at episode articles for the time being, or should we maybe see about working towards something major together? As it is, we could probably work through the seasons gradually for GT status, given enough time, although personally I only have secondary sourcing for the first four or five. I quite like the idea of overhauling one of the character lists to be something much more encyclopaedic, rather than a plot dump - if we tackled either List of The X-Files characters or List of Monster-of-the-Week characters on The X-Files, we could each name a few characters whose entries we'd be responsible for, trimming out anything trivial or not given secondary sourcing, and have a plot/production/reception breakdown for each one. I think the Monster-of-the-Week list could be split up by season, though, since it's rather large. Anyone keen on something like this, or have any other ideas? GRAPPLE X 19:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If there's a group consensus, I'd probably be up for something. Right now, I'm just going through the episodes that I liked and trying to get them up to GA status. If any one is curious, I'm going to overhaul "Leonard Betts," "Musing of a Cigarette Smoking Man," "X-Cops," "The Rain King," "Triangle," and "Arcadia"... eventually!--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've no print sources for those, and I think EW and the AV Club both stopped their reviews around the time of the first film, but if you need access to the DVD special features for those episodes then let me know. GRAPPLE X 23:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Went a bit crazy and planned out this possible Good Topic project. It's mostly based on episodes anyway so it can be improved in the background with the usual episode work anyway. Anything it's missing, or is it just a bit too big? GRAPPLE X 03:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Nice. What do all the symbols mean?--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

They're the current quality assessment of the articles in questions, from NA (redirect) to GA (good article). Lot of work but I think it could be worthwhile. GRAPPLE X 03:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've put together future GT tables for the first three seasons, and broken down the mythology topic into smaller sub-sections too. I'd like to handle the mythology episodes over the next few weeks as I've entered my name for the WikiCup and I'd like to use the big mythology topic as a guide for what to do during that contest - so come January I'll be working heavily on the articles in that. If I can call dibs on those now, that'd be great. GRAPPLE X 23:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

William B. Davis

I'm not a contributor on the WikiProject for X-Files, and I'm completely intimidated to make any changes to the project page. But wanted someone to know that I just completely rewrote William B. Davis's page. I have also (at the suggestion of another editor) nominated it for good article status. I noticed on Davis's discussion page that he has a high-priority status, so several things need to be updated here on the project page. Also don't think his page is on your scrolling "watchlist". Sgerbic (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea how that watchlist thing works - it's only recently started doing anything at all. And don't be intimidated by the project. It's really quite a small operation. As for your work on Davis' page, it's looking good. The lead needs some work, though - just give a brief summary of the rest of the article. Definitely mention things like his theatre work, the acting school, and CSICOP. I'd review it but it's part of the project where I do most of my edits, so it might not seem right. GRAPPLE X 02:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Grapple X. I did some summing up and it does really improve the page. If you know of anything else to improve the page please let me know. Sgerbic (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing issue

Can anyone help with suggestions at Template:Did you know nominations/Monday (The X-Files)? Issues with a boffin source, and information which ought to, by rights, be freely known. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Have responded at the nom template. GRAPPLE X 02:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Episode Plot Summaries

I just got finished creating/resurrecting a majority of season six and seven's episode pages. All of them have infoboxes, pictures, and broadcast data, but a majority have either no plot or a truncated plot section. Any one willing to help me expand these articles?--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Households/Viewers

Just wanted to point out that the ratings in millions for Seasons 1 and 2 (From that book written by Lowry) are in households and not viewers. Everything Season 3-7 (from those books written by Lowry, Meisler, and Shapiro), however, is in viewers. I went through almost all of the articles and changed all this around. Seasons 1 and 2 will have total household numbers, whereas Season 3-7 will now have total viewers. I also edited and cleaned up The X-Files (season 1) and The X-Files (season 2) to reflect this major find.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If we want to have it all in viewers, I think the Edwards book (seasons 1-3, half of season 4) lists in viewers. It gives some viewership info but not as much as the official books. GRAPPLE X 21:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I prefer viewers, but that's just me. I don't have that book on me, and there isn't a free preview available anywhere, but if someone (perhaps you?) has it, I think listing viewers on the season page and the episode pages themselves would be awesome.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got it. I'll check it tonight. For the record, I have the season 1 & 2 Lowry book, the Lovece one, the Edwards one, the season 4 and 5 Meisler books and the Shapiro season 6 one. They go for about a penny plus postage on Amazon so I figured I may as well splash out the whole, what, tenner? GRAPPLE X 22:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I found all of mine for a penny too. I got the 1 and 2nd Lowry one, the three Meisler ones, and the Shapiro one. They have all certainly came in handy!--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Just checked, Edwards only lists the rating and audience share, no viewer numbers. :( GRAPPLE X 23:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, shoot. Oh well, I have everything ship-shape (I believe) with households and viewers on all the other pages now!--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month

March this year is going to be WikiWomen's History Month, and I figure there's a few articles in the project we could spend the month working on to GA-status to tie in with this. I've made a list of articles I think seem relevant, along with their current assessment class. If anyone has any other suggestions or wants to lay claim to an article to work on, feel free to chime in. GRAPPLE X 23:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Article	Start	Current
Dana Scully
Monica Reyes
Samantha Mulder
Emma Hollis
Marita Covarrubias
Gillian Anderson
Annabeth Gish
Laurie Holden
Klea Scott
Mimi Rogers
Brittany Tiplady

What should we do with the "Cultural impact" section in Scully's article? Glimmer721 ^talk 21:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably be best to merge the cited entries into the "reception" header and rename it as "reception and legacy"; even then I'd scrutinise the sources to see if they're both reliable and third-party. GRAPPLE X 21:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Would it be okay to cite episodes of various TV serieses that are mentioned? My friend saw the Castle episode and told me about that line. I haven't seen Torchwood yet (though I know basic things about it), but I might be able to ask around or search to see which episode Jack and Gwen are referred to as Mulder and Scully. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. Might be worth checking for reviews for the more recent things, there'll be material on recent shows on newspaper websites or sites like The A.V. Club; but I suppose episode cites could work as well. GRAPPLE X 23:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Would the reception for Samantha Mulder be more on her storyline rather than the character, as she never really appears? Glimmer721 ^talk 22:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say both—clones of Samantha appear in several episodes and I'd lump those together as the one character. Megan Leitch plays an adult Samantha in "Colony", "End Game", "Redux II" and "The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati"; a variety of younger Samanthas appear elsewhere, but I think "Paper Hearts" and "Little Green Men" are the only speaking roles. I think reception is going to be primarily based on the storyline though. I'll have a look through the Shearman and Pearson book and see what I can pull together, and any reviews for the two-parter "Closure" and "Sein und Zeit" are probably going to make mention of the arc too. GRAPPLE X 22:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I added a little from "Colony"/"End Game" as that's the only one listed above I've seen (except for "Little Green Men", but I didn't see much commentary there). I was thinking Scully's article could be expanded with analysis on her role as the skeptic and her relationship with Mulder, similar to what is found in Jack Harkness or Gwen Cooper. This is a great source that I'll try to spoilerprobe through later. Glimmer721 ^talk 16:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

There's some material about the sceptic angle in the Lowry book, which I think has been used in the season 1 article; I'll have a look through anything for seasons 7-9 to see if there's any information about that stance changing. When you say "relationship with Mulder" do you mean the sceptic/believer one or the personal one? There's probably information on both that would be useful. I've done some work on Millennium's Emma Hollis, and I've a few articles bookmarked to try expanding Klea Scott with; I doubt it'll make GA status but I should be able to get it to DYK as it's currently an unsourced BLP and expanding it twofold should be doable. GRAPPLE X 19:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably personal, which would help merge some of the "relationships" section. The believer/skeptic dynamic would probably work in the section about her role as the skeptic. Emma Hollis looks good, and so does the start of Marita Covarrubias. Glimmer721 ^talk 21:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Marita needs more production information; I had hoped with Holden doing The Walking Dead she'd have done more interviews lately, but apparently not. GRAPPLE X 21:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm done with that source in my sandbox; there are a lot of gaps that need to be filled with production information/other analysists but it's good enough for now. Feel free to copyedit or add. I'm going to move on with the relationships section soon, though I've only seen most of the first two seasons so most of it will probably come from searching. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Some odds and ends

Just a few things I'm not sure justify topics of their own. Feel free to break anything out into a new header if you think it merits further discussion.

• A proposal has been made for a task force for the series Fringe, which would fall under WP:TV. While I've not seen the show myself, it's similar to The X-Files, so if any of you are also fans you might want to drop by the proposal page and voice your opinion.
• How does everyone feel about the use of the Importance parameters for episodes? Currently, monster-of-the-week episodes of The X-Files are rated "Mid", and mythology episodes are "High". I'm thinking that maybe we should increase each of those by a level, upping mythology eps to "Top", MOTW eps to "High", and keeping episodes of Millennium and The Lone Gunmen at "Mid". Seem fair?
• I'm thinking of trying to get the project some more awareness on the wiki. Template:Wikipedia ads and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk are two avenues to this. Think we're at a stage where we could get the word out, or should we maybe wait to rack up some more GA/GT content in order to seem more attractive first? GRAPPLE X 06:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: Shouldn't Millennium (pilot episode) be renamed to Pilot (Millennium) (which currently is just a redirect)? Glimmer721 ^talk 01:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. If the redirect already exists at the correct title then it'll require a move request. GRAPPLE X 01:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the pilot part of the mythology?

Is there a reason "Pilot" isn't marked with two asterisks (or at least one) on The X-Files (season 1) and List of The X-Files episodes? I thought the pilot was generally regarded with setting up the mythology. Thoughts? Glimmer721 ^talk 02:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It'a definitely part of it (see its relevance to "Requiem", half the eighth season, etc). I hate those asterisks, I was thinking of holding a poll here about just using the Mythology box sets as the official list of mythology episodes and nothing else, the two-tier thing is far to ORish for me. GRAPPLE X 14:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added the two asterisks to both articles anyway. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Aye, they should be there for consistency for the time being. GRAPPLE X 18:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mythology episodes (again)

The more I've been thinking about it (and the more I've been based work around the official mythology DVD sets), I get the feeling we should stick to just those DVD sets when it comes to listing mythology episodes on the season pages. That is, The X-Files Mythology, Volume 1 – Abduction, The X-Files Mythology, Volume 2 – Black Oil, The X-Files Mythology, Volume 3 – Colonization and The X-Files Mythology, Volume 4 – Super Soldiers. This gives us a list of episodes we can cite as belonging to the mythology, and cuts out all the grey areas (such as "if Conduit is mythology, why not Miracle Man", "is The Host counted", etc etc). I've set up a quick poll below, just sign your name where you agree and I'll drop by some interested editors in the next few days for some more feedback. If it helps, I plan on bringing GT noms this year for each of these sets and their episodes, and will be re-structuring the Mythology of The X-Files article based on the four volumes as divisions, instead of the season-based breaks it uses currently. GRAPPLE X 18:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this on the season pages.--Gen. Quon (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Use the Mythology box sets

1. GRAPPLE X 18:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Gen. Quon (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquote

There is Wikiquote page for all The X-Files episodes, a link to which can be placed in the "External links" section of each episode page with {{Wikiquote}}. ({{Wikiquote|The X-Files|EPISODENAME}}). I'm willing to go through the pages inserting this, but I'd just thought I'd put this notice and see what you think. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely a good idea. I think I made sure this was added to the season 1 articles as I was bringing them to GT, but I'd forgotten about it since. Should be a useful addition, good catch. GRAPPLE X 02:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to add them starting in season 2 based on those articles. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Reviews

Anyone willing to review some of the X-Files GA's? Quite a few of my nom's (about 30) have built up for awhile, and I've thoroughly gone through most of them, in the mean time, and checked for prose mistakes. Cheers.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been fiddling with project articles for a while so I'm not sure which ones I could review and not count as a contributor, but I'll look through and see if any of the articles you've created recently are listed, as they'd be totally fine for me to do. You might also get a good response if you left a notice on the talk page for the Wikicup, as competitors there gain points for GA reviews. GRAPPLE X 16:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll try that out. Also, most of the ones I've nom'd are sixth or seventh season articles that I had to resurrect from the redirect boneyard, so they're all pretty new.--Gen. Quon (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Have finished one review, I'll try to work through some more tonight since there's a good few I've no involvement with. GRAPPLE X 18:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, cool. I'll be ready to make an necessary changes.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I can review a few if I have time; I haven't edited most of them (and if I have, it was probably nothing major). Glimmer721 ^talk 19:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be awesome. No big rush, but I thought I'd ask around.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding WikiProject Television to talk pages

FYI: All episode pages should have {{WikiProject Television|episode-coverage=Yes|class=CLASS|importance=}} on the talk page. I've gone through most, but there are always new pages being created so I thought I'd post the notice. Also, what should the "importance" field be? Or should we just not worry about it? Glimmer721 ^talk 03:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've wondered about that. I'd consider most of the episode articles to be of low importance to WP:TV, although its own importance guide would suggest that perhaps the various pilot episodes, as well as perhaps The Truth (The X-Files), Fox Mulder, Dana Scully, Frank Black (character) and maybe The Smoking Man could be considered mid or higher; certainly The X-Files would be high. If in doubt, leave it empty I guess. GRAPPLE X 03:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Lone Gunmen

There appears to be lots of problems with unsourced articles connected to The Lone Gunmen (TV series). For example, we have a mostly unsourced article on The Lone Gunmen that should be merged into the TV series articles. We also have articles on the main fictional characters—John Fitzgerald Byers, Melvin Frohike, and Richard Langly—that have been virtually unsourced since at least 2009. Before I take some extreme steps at merging, I would appreciate it if someone who actually cares about these articles would look at the problem and propose a solution. Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the individual character article should be merged into The Lone Gunmen. I'll eventually be sourcing that one myself as part of a Good Topic project, and merging it into the series article wouldn't be a great idea even without that, as the characters have appeared on The X-Files more than on their own series. To be frank, I don't even think there's much, if anything, that needs to be carried from the individual character articles into the parent one, so I'm wondering if they could just be outright deleted. Probably merging would be best. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you be willing to take care of this? Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It's already on my to-do list but I'll probably not get to it right away. I'll be doing it within the year for definite so I'll try to get it done as soon as I can. GRAPPLE X 16:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Within a year! I'll try and help merge in the next few days. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Millennium

Could any of you guys maybe run an eye over List of accolades received by Millennium? I'm thinking of bringing it to FLC soon, which would be the project's first featured content nomination. It's not exactly huge but I'm confident it stands alone well. A fresh pair of eyes or two would be a great aid to things. GRAPPLE X 23:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good enough to me, though I'm not exactly an FL expert. Maybe you should mention the premise of the show in the lead, or at least tell which character the actors played? Glimmer721 ^talk 01:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Have added a brief paragraph mentioning those points to the lead ([1]). Thanks for looking at it for me. GRAPPLE X 01:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome. It looks good! Glimmer721 ^talk 01:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I just ran over it, and nothing amiss jumped out at me. Looks really good!--69.77.49.98 (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Nominated at FLC now. Our first featured content nomination, hope it goes well. GRAPPLE X 21:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

Lately, I've been working my way through all the X-Files episodes on Hulu. It's nice to see so much good work being done with the articles in this project. Keep it up! Zagalejo^^^ 03:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. We fully intend to! So how far along have you gotten in the series? GRAPPLE X 12:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Just starting season six! Zagalejo^^^ 04:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That's my favorite season, but a lot of fans don't like it. But they're wrong. ;)--Gen. Quon (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Article alerts?

Think it's worth signing up for article alerts for the project? I tend to see everything showing up in my watchlist anyway but I'll fill in all the application stuff later if anyone else thinks it would be a useful addition. GRAPPLE X 15:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not sure it would add anything, considering the project doesn't encompass that many pages. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month follow-up

Hi everyone! I just wanted to follow up with your project and see if any article creations or improvements took place in regards to Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month! If so, it'd be great if you could please post your article outcomes on the..you guessed it...WWHM outcome page! Thanks everyone for all your efforts! Sarah (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've already added anything that reached GA or DYK during the month (a humble lot, though), but there's some more content awaiting GA review that I'll add if it passes. Thanks for checking in! GRAPPLE X 20:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

But hey, I added some reception to Scully's article and did some research (though I'm not sure how to implement it into the article), so that's an improvement :) Glimmer721 ^talk 23:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had listed Scully as expanded, but if I missed it then definitely add it! GRAPPLE X 23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, I didn't look; I just was pointing out there were other improvements that didn't get up to GA or DYK yet, so we did a lot. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

WP The X-Files in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject The X-Files for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A-Class content

I recently expanded the classification listings for project pages (you'll see that "Book-class" is now supported, instead of being lumped in with "NA", for instance), and doing so led me to wonder if A-Class was something we wanted to support. I singled out Triangle (The X-Files) as it's one of our best articles; and on getting a second opinion from Glimmer I added the class to that article. Nothing earth-shattering has happened since, and so I'm wondering if it's something we now want to consider doing on a regular basis. We're a small project so a review structure like WP:MILHIST's is totally out of the question; however, perhaps a sub page for editors to add a nomination that they feel is worthy of the status (not one they've worked on themselves), so that someone coming along afterwards can pick that nomination up, be the second opinion, and approve or deny it. That would streamline the process a little, and would allow a slow trickle of nominations so that we could manage it on a low level while we're still getting used to it. I think there's still a few articles that could be promoted, such as Beyond the Sea (The X-Files), so there's definitely some initial room to expand. However, if the rest of you find that it seems like too much hassle and you'd rather just stick to GA and eventual FA nominations then feel free to shoot this down. Thoughts? GRAPPLE X 21:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"Beyond the Sea" is probably A-worthy. Not quite sure about the nomination procedure though; might be too small of a project. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

X-Files screenshots up for deletion

FYI, a large number of X-Files screencaps have been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_May_31. -- 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ready for the Agents Mulder and Scully article?

I've done the Sam and Diane article. Is anybody up for "Agents Mulder and Scully" one? --George Ho (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We have articles for the individual characters; a draft of Scully's is being worked on which includes a good section on the relationship between the two, this'll obviously be mirrored in Mulder's. I don't think we need a redundant article on the two as a pair. GRAPPLE X 01:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You guys are awesome.

I see you guys everywhere—FAC, FLC, FTC, GAN—and wanted to thank you for your hard work. The statistics speak for themselves; 250 out of 620 X-Files articles are at least a GA. I've never such numbers in five years on Wikipedia!

I'm currently watching the entire show myself (just saw Season 2's "Blood"), and reading these articles afterwards definitely adds to the experience.—indopug (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad you're getting the use out of it! That's what I was doing as I first watched the show, but there was a lot less to read two years ago. Bearing in mind that 620 includes about 100 files and maybe another 100 admin/book-keeping pages (books, project pages, templates) then I think we're going great. It's definitely achievable to get everything in the project to Good or better status. How are you finding the series anyway? If you're well into season 2 you've already seen most of my favourites, but keep an eye out for "Anasazi". GRAPPLE X 13:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

A-Class articles

Here's some articles that have been opened up for A-Class assessment:

• "Terms of Endearment (The X-Files)" (1 of 2)
• "The Unnatural (The X-Files)"
• "Field Trip"
• "The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati"
• "all things" (1 of 2)
• "Deadalive"
• "Gender Bender (The X-Files)" (1 of 2)

Please add suggestions and comments if you'd like! :)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Have added one; marked those with some comments. Will comment some more now. GRAPPLE X 01:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I've really beefed up "all things" (I added some more info in production and themes and converted the "Episode Commentary" into individual citations) if you want to take another quick peak. I feel its a lot better now than it was.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

All A-Class reviews, nominations, and comments on them, have all been moved to their own pages at WP:TXF/ACR, please leave further comments, and new nominations there. Thank you. TBrandley 03:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Lone Gunmen (TV series) at Articles for Improvement.

Dear members of the The X-Files WikiProject. This notification is sent from the Articles for Improvement team to let you know that the article The Lone Gunmen (TV series), which has been tagged as part of the project, has been selected to receive a community improvement. Users and members of the project that are willing to help, may do so in the article's entry on the Articles for Improvement page.

Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"X-Files" A-Class review

If anyone would like, there are a few episodes that are up for A-class review at Wikipedia:WikiProject The X-Files A-Class review. It would be super awesome if someone could give them a read through and list any issues. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd do it if I had seen them...just finished "Tithonus". Glimmer721 ^talk 17:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sowwy. I've had a tab open for days as I've been meaning to review "Milagro". I'll grab one or two tonight. GRAPPLE X 18:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)