Talk:The X-Files/Archive 5

message: :Image:Toomsx.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 14:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Toomsx.jpg

message: I don't know who else will find this interesting, but I came across this paragraph in an article (http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2779435.ece) about Anderson's latest sequel comments:
Those are our words, people. This is pretty much a rearranged version of the first paragraph of the "Idea & pilot" section. 
Not excited? Oh well. I was.
Equazcion 02:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that is something to be pretty excited about. It just go's to show that peoples' hard work can pay off and be used in a national publication which some journalist can get a pat on the back from his editor for writing. ScarianTalk 06:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Independent.co.uk uses Wikipedia for research

message: Xfpisher, 
The credits listed in actors' resumes on IMDb are the same credits listed on the projects' pages themselves. The project doesn't appear on Duchovny and Anderson's pages because their names don't appear on the project page. Chris Carter's name does, and the project also appears on his page. I've rewritten the statement to simplify this. 
Also, you can't say what IMDb does "frequently" without referencing it -- and besides, as I'm sure was the purpose of that edit, I think we've already quantified just how much credence this event should garner: The statement of pages being created in the past for this project and being subsequently deleted already serves that purpose.
And once again, would you please provide edit summaries when you make significant edits? The fact that you don't leaves the impression that even you can't justify what you're doing. 
Thank you. 
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sequel

message: In reference to the recently-posted/removed TV Guide report: If there is no web link available to a print source, use the  template. This template lets you include things like date, issue number, and page number, so that readers can easily find the referenced quote in a printed copy. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 17:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TV Guide is a journal?  Anyway, thanks.  I won't restore the edit until such time as I can properly cite it.  Perhaps it will become unnecessary to restore it, if Duchovny (or someone else) makes further clarifying statements in the meantime. Xfpisher 17:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. Magazines are not necessarily journals by definition, but for Wikipedia purposes, they are referenced using the same method. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 17:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure all the information called for in the journal citation template is relevant to TV Guide--do all those spaces need to be filled in?  Basically, all people need is title, date, author, and page #'s.  Sometimes these templates are very finicky, in my experience, which is why I ask.  Isn't there a template specific to commercial magazines, as opposed to academic journals? Xfpisher 20:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not all fields in the template are required. See the usage examples shown at Template:Cite journal for the minimum required fields. I think the fields you listed should be fine, and will cause the reference to display correctly. Just be sure to also include the "journal=" field, which is for the name of the publication -- which in this case would be "TV Guide". If you're still not sure how exactly to code the reference, just do your best and I'll fix it afterwards. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 20:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite journal

message: A discussion that was not relevant to improving the article has been removed. Please see wp:Talk page guidelines. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 15:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion removed

message: I recently expanded this section, but it was undone by Equazcion. I intend to re-instantiate it unless someone can provide with a reason for which I ought. I will also insert a reference this time, to http://www.myth-x.org/SiteMap.htm which agrees with my list, with the exception of the episode "Avatar", which I feel was rightly included in the original list. Either way, an additional edit, which I perhaps should have done separately, was to correct a typo. The episode "Deadalive" should be correctly capitalised as "DeadAlive".
DeanO 01:44, 18 August 2007 (AEST)
:I will never remove properly referenced information, so go for it. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 02:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding the "Unofficial mythology episodes"

message: An abusive user has been spamming on articles related to X-Files actors (Robert Patrick, Gillian Anderson etc.) that said actor/actress "is known to use the nom de plume DFowley when posting to X-Files-related websites and newsgroups." with the edit description of "Some additional information". His different screennames include User:Hjmmjbo and User:Upnnz. Algabal 10:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add Ebwje (Contribs) to that list. He's done the same thing 4 times to David Duchovny. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 00:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I reported all 3 users at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and they've been blocked. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 01:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for helping out! Algabal 01:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My pleasure :) Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 01:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam

message: This section is a breeding ground for frequent changes based on the whims of readers. To prevent this, if you want to make a change (addition and/or deletion) please at least do one of the following:
*Post a reference. Being that this is an unofficial list, all you would need to do is reference a reasonably reputable fan site that agrees with your edit.
*If you can't post a ref, at least explain your reasoning here in the talk page so that it can be discussed.
As a general rule, I would say in my humble opinion, that only episodes that advance the plot of the mythology should be included. Episodes about things, people, or ideas that have never been mentioned before and are never mentioned again should be omitted. In other words, there should be a significant impact on the mythology storyline in order for an episode to be considered mythology.
If this section changes too frequently I'm going to simply remove it. And I have every reason to do so -- by its very nature the section is only asking for trouble, and it really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article anyway, being unofficial. A request for moderation would result in it being removed -- of that I'm fairly certain.  Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 00:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already knew extraterrestrials could live on earth from previous episodes. And since they can shape-shift, we knew that they can all be different. I'm also pretty sure that even after this episode there are still separate races -- little gray men, bounty hunters, rebels, and (later on) super-soldiers. Everything about that episode is really a standalone story, even though it incorporates aliens. Its events are never brought up again and it had no implications outside the episode itself. But anyone else is welcome to comment on this. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 06:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd really like to get more opinions on this, but there don't seem to be that many people paying attention to this talk page recently. So if you want to put the episode back in the "unofficial" list, I'll support that; at least until more people comment on it. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 03:02, 09/18/2007
Okay, after waiting a good month for another comment, I decided just to put The Unnatural in that section. Maybe when people see it, they will comment..........--Exer 505 02:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Because its uncited, unofficial information added by fans. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Who decides what's unofficial and what's not?--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It was already discussed down here, and even if more fans were to agree with you, it would still be against policy. If you want, I can bring an administrator here and ask his opinion.--CyberGhostface 02:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unofficial mythology section

message: Hi, I think we should include the episode The Unnatural from season 6 in the list, because the episode show how the extraterrestrial can live on the earth, how they can be all different and ( I think, but I am not sure) it's the first episode to show that there is one extraterrestrial race (instead of two like you could believe from the other episodes, 1 gray and 1 human-like) Paldiski 02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already knew extraterrestrials could live on earth from previous episodes. And since they can shape-shift, we knew that they can all be different. I'm also pretty sure that even after this episode there are still separate races -- little gray men, bounty hunters, rebels, and (later on) super-soldiers. Everything about that episode is really a standalone story, even though it incorporates aliens. Its events are never brought up again and it had no implications outside the episode itself. But anyone else is welcome to comment on this. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 06:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd really like to get more opinions on this, but there don't seem to be that many people paying attention to this talk page recently. So if you want to put the episode back in the "unofficial" list, I'll support that; at least until more people comment on it. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 03:02, 09/18/2007
Okay, after waiting a good month for another comment, I decided just to put The Unnatural in that section. Maybe when people see it, they will comment..........--Exer 505 02:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Because its uncited, unofficial information added by fans. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Who decides what's unofficial and what's not?--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It was already discussed down here, and even if more fans were to agree with you, it would still be against policy. If you want, I can bring an administrator here and ask his opinion.--CyberGhostface 02:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Unnatural (season 6)

message: Does any one knows where the aliens go after leaving earth ?--Jonybond 11:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The show never gives any clues to that, as far as I know. The closest thing is a radio signal that gets received, and I believe they determine which area of space the signal came from (I could be confusing this with the movie Contact though). The show isn't so much about the aliens as it is about the conspiracy that revolves around them, so there isn't much mention of outer-space matters. The aliens are a McGuffin, in a limited sense; something that moves the plot along but the details of which don't matter so much. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 20:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aliens home planet ? 

message: In case anyone isn't aware, an attempt is being made at AFD to delete a swath of individual episode articles here. 23skidoo 17:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: En-masse deletion attempt for episode articles

message: I have attempted to remove redundant information (speculation about whether a new X-Files movie will be made or not) and replace it with factual information (Confirmation by [[Twentieth Century Fox, etc) yet the information is being reverted and I've received warnings for "blanking the page". I'd prefer to believe this is an eror of some kind and not the work of an anti-Chris Carter, anti-X-Files 2 zealot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.245.44 (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This claim has been made because your account seems to have popped into existence in order to continue User:210.54.245.44's edit war without getting blocked for a 3RR limit violation. Please read: WP:3RR. --Pleasantville 18:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who Rabidly Placid is but I do know they aren't me. What I would like to know is why you feel my edits aren't acceptable. Thanks a bunch.210.54.245.44  —Preceding comment was added at 19:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ha - I can't even pronounce his surname let alone care about defending him from "criticism". ScarianTalk 21:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: gosh within minutes of my edit both RepublicaJacobite and Scarian are back to defend their edits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.245.44 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explain Please

message: You can sign in to the proyect, now is just a proposal, here  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frao61 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproyect: The X-Files in proposal 

message: There have been a great many edits to this section of the article recently, and many (perhaps most) of them have not been helpful.  We need to discuss this matter here and come to some conclusions about what this section should say, how long it should be, etc.  For now, I am going to revert to the old version, and encourage everyone to leave it be until some decisions are made and consensus is reached.  My personal feeling is that the old(er) version is better, but that it needs to be edited to remove some of the old speculation.  A short, well-referenced section that concludes with the confirmation that a second film is being made would be best.  A long discussion of "past speculation" seems unnecessary.  What do other people think? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you. Short, sweet and succinct. (Alliteration is wonderful :-) ScarianTalk 22:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way have the edits not been helpful? The unedited article does not make clear that the new movie has been confirmed by Twentieth Century Fox. I have added those facts. You continually revert the article back to the original state. How are your edits helpful when all they do is (intentionally) obscure the known facts? This article desperately needs moderation by people who AREN'T rabid Duchovny fans and who aren't rabidly anti-Chris Carter! Otherwise we are going to be left with an article which makes it appear that the movie is still unconfirmed, when in fact it has been officially and publicly confirmed by Twentieth Century Fox.210.54.245.44 22:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm so confused... how is it obscuring facts? It seems to me (an outside observer, I know nothing of the X-files) that the part you're moving is the conclusion of the rest of the stuff in the section, which you're labeling "previous speculation" are these things seperate? If so, how? Because they seems directly connected to me, and moving them makes them seem so. Gscshoyru 22:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is titled "Future of the X-Files". We know now that the new movie is official. Why bury that under the pile of mostly speculative and completely outdated stuff about it being in "development hell" or that Gillian Anderson really hopes it will happen this time? This is an encyclopedia and the known facts should therefore take priority over out dated old information. Instead the facts are being hidden away at the bottom of a section mostly composed of speculative material.210.54.245.44 22:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because chronological order is the way to go? In all seriousness, you can probably re-write the prose to be something like "the movie is confirmed, etc, but it had a rocky history, etc. Without the "rocky history" POV, anyways. Splitting them into two sections is unnecessary and also gives readers the wrong idea. Gscshoyru 22:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the film has now been confirmed, the sequel article (which apparently existed once upon a time) can and should be revived (if this has not already happened), and then a lot of the information in this "future" section can be moved over there.  There is no reason whatsoever to have two sections to deal with the same material.  And, as Gscshoyru quite correctly says, the information given should be in chronological order.  Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future of The X-Files 

message: :Image:Toomsx.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Toomsx.jpg

message: :Image:Syndicate008.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Syndicate008.jpg

message: I've merged the history article back here. It was rotting away cause no one was working on it or paying attention. There was one edit in 3 months. The named refs that were defined in this article were never fixed following the split and betacommand bot was deleting all its media. This is good and interesting material and probably no one was even seeing it. I've re-merged it back here under a new "History" section. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:23, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-merge of history 

message: :Image:Msf74.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I took care of this but this fair-use rationale crap is like some kind of annoying foreign language to me, so if someone could please check to see if it's fixed I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:43, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Msf74.jpg

message: 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) 05:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) Equazcion •✗/C • 06:00, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A source that can be used '' Truth Is Out There: The Official Guide to the X Files'' 

message: The layout and organization of this article make no sense to me.  Would it not make more sense to have the "idea and pilot" section come first, followed by the history, and then the cast?  I find the chart of characters, with the table of contents running alongside it, very distracting and offputting right at the beginning of the article.  And it simply makes more sense to talk about Carter's idea for the show and how said idea developed then to begin with a chart of the characters.  The discussion of "types of episodes" should also come later in the article, prefereably after the history.  Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed -- the most important cast stuff is already listed in the prose sections, anyway. As it is, it is very clunky and chunky and usability is POOR. --Lquilter (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Also agree on the section order. The right-side wrapped TOC is my doing, which I did because the TOC is just so long that it produced this huge empty space when placed the default way. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:11, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: I reordered the sections accordingly, but now the TOC nested right looks odd. I'm not sure which is better, the big empty space or the awkward TOC placement. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:31, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks considerably better, even with the TOC on the right.  I think putting it in its "normal" position would be a bad idea, considering the amount of space that would be wasted. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article layout 

message: I don't really get it. Why is there a citation needed for the fact that this sci-fi show is not longer the longest running? I mean: clearly you can just count one and one together....
* X-Files: 9 Seasons
* Stargate SG-1: 10 Seasons
If anything IMO a link to the SG-1 article here on Wikipedia should be enough.
Yours fkm:80.218.176.225 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for longest running sci-fi show 

message: Whilst reverting an edit a few moments ago, I got a message saying my edit could not be saved because there was a page listed in the article with the URL associatedcontent.com, and that all content from said site was banned.  Does anyone know anything about this?  For future reference, do not add any references or external links from said site. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly not a reliable source, but I didn't know the wiki actually prevented saving of any particular text. I've never heard of this. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:45, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Associated Content? 

message: I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series 

message: Please join a discussion over on Talk: The X-Files (film) about whether to rename that article to The X-Files (Fight the Future), "Fight the Future" is the first movie's subtitle/working title/nickname. The word "film" in the disambiguation section of the first movie's title seems increasingly incomplete as the release date for the second film The X-Files: I Want to Believe approaches. Convergence Dude (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI: rename discussion [[The X-Files (film)]] --> [[The X-Files (Fight the Future)]] 

message: See Wikipedia:Peer review/The X-Files/archive2 for this article's peer review. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making this a featured article in time for the new movie 

message: There should be two articles, The X-Files (TV series) and The X-Files (franchise), because alot of this article is about the franchise. And there are alot of X-Files articles, so a franchise article is appropriate. 70.55.88.176 (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you mean by "franchise," though? Only a small amount of this article is about the X-Files movies and links with other series, or even about the fans. That info could be removed somewhere else if you find a better place, but it wouldn't make the article much shorter. Most of the info is about the production process, plot and public reception of the original X-Files TV show. The way to split that info off would be to make season articles, not a "franchise" article. 172.130.0.70 (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know there are also X-files novels, books etc. A franchise article covering the series, movies and all other media as well as the general reception issues in fair length might be a good idea;  but it would require not a simple separation, but the creation of a new article and the necessary editing of this one.  Evren Güldoğan (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the series and franchise should have separate articles 

message: Could it be split into Story Synopsis and Production history.  I'm quite interested in finding out about the development of the mythology, but the history section mixes this with information about awards, ratings and other tidbits, which I'm sure many people would find in interesting but makes for difficult reading. Ajmayhew (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: right topic?! another starting point
The descriptive nature of the article is wonderful.  For all, who are more interested in the theme of the x-file and are in the mood of inspector investigate, i recommend content around the title of this video.  the soundtrack is german.  maybe there is more american language translation for unexplainable events in the us and around the world.  trust no one is out, youtube is in- browse before "killer tomatoes" are flaged at youtube.com...--84.157.244.34 (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  new ideas available to interpret and document the series and real events... 

message: Anyone against creating separate articles for each season, with only a single paragraph for each on this article? Like they did with Lost_(TV_series)#Season_synopses.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the article 

message: i've changed the number of episodes from 202 to the correct 201. the BBC reference may say 202 but this is incorrect. the number 202 is based on the incorrect notion that "The Truth" constitutes two episodes. it is a two part episode. it was aired with no gap between the parts, the DVD lists it as a single episode, the wiki article for the list of episodes lists it as episode 201.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.49.147 (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris Carter has stated that there were 202 episodes of The X-Files. Let me see if I can find the video online. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 05:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

text: You know, it's really stupid when you believe that I changed that because I think I'm right or something. I haven't edited that page in God knows how long. I'd really appreciate it if you would stop being so damn rude - it's making me think you're really immature. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 16:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the number of episodes is that it seems not even Fox knows how many there are. The original ninth season box set says "19 episodes". The repackaged one says "20 episodes" while the ultimate collection says "201 episodes, including the double-length series finale". I say go with the latest release, which is the ultimate collection, because that's also how it was aired. Davhorn (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of episodes: 201 VS 202 

message: the article says "(duchovny) returning for several dramatic episodes, and flashbacks were seen in the ninth." well no he wasn't in any flashbacks in the ninth season. only thing i can think of is his split second appearance as a hallucination in spenders eye in "William". which i wouldnt call a flashback. and even if you do, that's the only one. 'flashbacks' is plural. i cant figure out how to rewrite this part. though i did rewrite the part about his involvement in season 8 because it seemed to give the impression that he only made a few small guest appearances, when in fact he stars in the majority of season eight's episodes. Nesiac (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc. errors 

message: Help me out here, I could have sworn reading in an X Files book that at one point One format of the X files is "crime drama".
You've got these formats listed (which are all good by the way): Science fiction, Drama, Thriller, Horror, Mystery
However I added in "crime"....but someone edited it out.
Anyone think that should be added in again?
i dont. they're not investigating crimes most of the time. and when they do, thats not primarily why they're investigating the case. its a show about paranormal activity not criminal activity 124.187.72.158 (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime drama?