Talk:Mythology of The X-Files

What this is

Since the mythology is pretty much explained in detail in many separate X-Files related articles, I see this article as a way of tying it all together through links. I think the information should be kept rather general here, telling the overall story but not getting too bogged down in detail. Equazcion (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

vaccine

I added info on why the vaccine wasn't used in the end, but I don't remember it too well. Anyone who remembers the story better than me should feel free to check and edit the details, at the end of "Colonization effort". Also I'd like to add in Mulder's use of the vaccine in the movie to save Scully and bring down the alien breeding operation, but I don't remember how he got it. Anyone? Equazcion (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions Quiddity. Equazcion (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I can't recall why they never simply went ahead and provided the vaccine to all the Syndicate members and their families, sure would have made sense. :P Then again, by season 6, much of the show no longer made much sense anymore ^_^ Added the info regarding Mulder's use of the vaccine for you. Regarding the black oil, Cassandra Spender says in 'Two Fathers': "They're infecting all other life-forms with a black substance called Purity. It's their life force, what they're made of." Although wikipedia editors will never consider this a source worthy enough of citations, this site provides about as detailed an explanation on the mythology as one can find, and agrees with my thoughts on the black oil being the colonist's true form: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dunes/7280/xfm.html Quiddity99 (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99

That is a good theory. I think I remember somewhere Mulder saying it's their blood, which goes with "life force". Equazcion (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You can reference the information here with the different episodes! --TIAYN (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but there's no episode that says the black oil is the aliens in their true form. We could quote Cassandra Spender's description though, and let the reader decide what it means. Equazcion (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If its clearly stated in the episode, and without any contradiction in the other episodes, use it as source. --TIAYN (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Scully's cure

Things are being completely mixed up with this statement concerning Skinner's involvement in Scully's cure:

"Mulder, convinced that the cancer in these women was a direct result of the abductions, attempted unsuccessfully to obtain a cure from the Syndicate. His superior at the FBI, Walter Skinner, who had formed a close relationship with the agents, was able to obtain the cure by making a deal with the Cigarette Smoking Man behind Mulder's back. The cure that the Smoking Man turned over was a microchip similar to that which Scully had removed from her neck. She decided to try re-implanting the chip in its prior location, and the cancer subsequently went into remission."

Here's how the events went down:

• Scully finds out she has cancer (Leonard Betts)
• Scully tells Mulder and Skinner. Mulder talks to Skinner, wanting to make a deal with CSM to cure Scully, which Skinner convinces him not to do. Skinner then turns around and makes the deal with CSM himself. (Memento Mori)
• Skinner performs tasks for CSM, but CSM doesn't do anything for Scully and she gets worse. Skinner ends the deal (Zero Sum)
• Mulder kills Ostlehoff, steals his ID card, and heads into the DOD HQ, making his way through there to the Pentagon where he finds a vial that he believes may have her cure. CSM prevents the guards from detaining Mulder as he leaves. Mulder, meeting with the Lone Gunmen finds the vial contains dionized water. (Redux)
• CSM, as part of many good will gestures towards Mulder (letting him see 'Samantha', offering him the truth, etc...) reveals to Mulder that the vial contains a microchip which can be implanted into Scully and cure her. (Redux II)

I'm gonna revert the text to how it was before. Quiddity99 (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99

I stand corrected. It's been a while since I've gone through the episodes, so I'm glad there are others here to correct me. Equazcion (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Millennium/Lone Gunman part of X-Files mythology?

I'm not sure that the Millennium and Lone Gunman series should be considered part of the X-Files mythology -- especially Millenium. The mythology of the X-Files should be limited to The X-Files series, in my opinion. Millennium had its own storyline. In my experience when people refer to the X-Files mythology they're usually referring to the story within that one series alone. Equazcion (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

But this article should center around TXF franchise. --TIAYN (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, based on your edits I see that that's your opinion, but I don't see the reasoning behind it. The x-files mythology doesn't include Millennium or Lone Gunman. The mythology DVDs don't include episodes from either of those shows. Equazcion (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Expansion

At the request of TIAYN I have started an overall summary of the show's mythology, chronologically as it was presented in the series. I have also started a section discussing the behind the scenes development of the mythology. Let me know what your thoughts are. I'll stop where I am now until I see how the others thing about approaching it in this manner. Quiddity99 (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99

As I've begun doing already, the chronology should be labeled as such and divided up by season, I think. Equazcion (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is missing serious information connected to the mythology, either you (or someone else) add the missing mythology information. If this doesn't happened it is going to be removed by nine long plot summaries. Why? because its much easier to add real-world information about the mythology if the article is set up that way. --TIAYN (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily need to be replaced. That's why I divided the article into "story elements" and "chronology", so that hopefully both can coexist. Hopefully the chronology won't get too out-of-control in terms of length. As far as the missing information, if you see things missing you should tell us what they are, so that people can add them. Equazcion (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because it will become to "In-Universe" if we don't do anything. I would go for the "Chronology", because it gives a detailed, but an "Out of Universe" perspective. For one reason, we can't keep "Out of Universe" articles, peer notability issues. --TIAYN (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the chronology section will become too unweildy if we simply label it "Later Cases" (where did this title come from? That describes their first cases together! :P) and "The New X-Files") Personally, I preferred the season by season headings. Quiddity99 (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99

Agreed. The current heading are made-up and are basically original research. The season headings make much more sense, I think. Equazcion (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The last season was promoted as "The New X-Files". --TIAYN (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A few things

I haven't paid much attention to this article in about a month, which seems to be about when it was changed significantly, ie. the non-chronological description of plot elements removed. I might put it back in, because I think it serves the article better, though I wouldn't remove what's currently here; at least not until I could get a sense of what consensus is -- which is how big decisions are supposed to be handled.

I see the "new x-files" heading is still there, despite the discussion above. There's obviously a problem with that.

The "New X-Files" was removed from the chronological section, but the ninth season was promoted as "The New X-Files" and the production staff used to call the ninth season aa "New X-Files". --TIAYN (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The "list of mythology episodes" article that seems to be coming could be a problem, as the only definitive listing comes from the Mythology DVD set. All other listings, even those in wider use than the mythology DVD list, are basically original research. Every effort to list the mythology episodes in the original X-Files article became a magnet for original research, ie. people who held their own opinions about which episodes were considered mythology. This might become a similar problem.

It would really be nice if this talk page were used in some manner befitting an article that has changed as much as this one has in the last month. Descriptive edit summaries would also be good. I appreciate TIAYN's efforts, and his work looks nice; However, there's a serious lack of effort towards collaboration here -- which is almost as important -- and way too much singular thinking. I know there are only 3 or 4 people including myself who've worked on this article, but we still all deserve to be in on it. Equazcion (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Quiddity99 is busy in real-life, thats why he has not included any of remaining edit summaries. "The New X-Files" is back because season nine was promoted as "The New X-Files", which is not my fault. Removed List of The X-Files Mythology episdes. --TIAYN (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining about Quiddity. TIAYN, see WP:EDITSUMMARY.

There seems to be somewhat of a language barrier here. To reiterate, my main concern is that you, TIAYN, have not discussed major changes here, before making them. Equazcion (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I know you were not complaining about Quiddity99, but you said i did these changes alone, which i didn't. And sorry for not being collaborative enough, i know, its a problem. But creating sections for the "Cigarette Smoking Man" and the aliens is redundant, since they have there own pages were that information is listed.

But if you want to change anything to the article, pleasae give me a message on my talk page or this. --TIAYN (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Giving a short summary of something and linking to a main article isn't redundant. It's called WP:Summary style. I saw the point of this article to pretty much be a collection of summaries regarding the mythology, in order to tie all those individual articles together. You seem to have had a different vision, of this article being a replacement for the episode synopsis that you removed from the main X-Files article. Perhaps it should be both, but it's already pretty long. Maybe I'll create another separate article for the plot elements. Equazcion (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Question, when did i remove a synoposis on the main article, The X-Files? Are we talking about the big change i did on the page. If so, i removed the edit summaries because we have season articles for that. Second most of the sections were full of In-Universe information, such as plot summaries. The creation of a mythology article came to me when i read through some other mythology articles. Why i don't think we can have it your way, well because its going to become the same mess as Mythology of Lost and Stargate.

What's the point of creating an article for the plot elements, when first they have their own articles here on wikipedia, second the article would become to In-Universeal and have no three-party sources, and if used, it would be redundant since its already used in seperate articles, and third, whats the point? --TIAYN (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The synopses I was referring to were the "in-universe" plot descriptions you removed. Plot descriptions are not necessarily all in-universe. Your season chronology in this article is the same thing. The point of creating an article for the plot elements is to a) describe the plot in an easily-referencable way that non-fans can understand, and b) to tie all the individual articles together. That's what WP:Summary style is all about -- providing short descriptions of larger articles. "In-universe" means using language that refers to fictional elements as if they were real. It doesn't mean we aren't allowed to describe fiction in an organized way. Your season chronology does the same thing, only organized in a different way. Equazcion (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Its still redundant to this article, the season articles and The X-Files page. Wouldn't this version just be redundant, seeing that it has the same information as the CSM, the Syndicate, Colonist etc... And adding production information real-world information (prod. reception and such) would be redundant since its already used in the other articles. This page as it is now, has real-world information of how the writers created the storyline, what they though of it etc. and includes reception information, such as reviews general criticism of how it was made etc.. --TIAYN (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Again: It's summary style. Summaries often contain some redundant information with their main articles, but it's still a helpful way of organizing links to other articles. I don't have an example article handy but I'll try to find one. Real-world production information is good, and I'm not necessarily saying it should be removed. But a well-organized description of plot elements can also be good. It helps non-fans understand specific plot elements, without having to read through the lengthy chronology of the series. The Lost mythology did get a bit out of hand, because it now contains a lot of original research and synthesis, but that doesn't necessarily mean the concept is faulty. Equazcion (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

But why? That's what he have the List of The X-Files characters for! The mythology is to give a summary of the mythology episodes and how they developed it. But fine, if you want to create a separate article, fine. But it will never be able to become a GA or FA. So if you want to, create a seperate article. --TIAYN (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The list of characters only lists characters, rather than plot elements. Things like the black oil, ufo abductions, and Scully's abduction aren't listed there (they are mentioned there, but the article isn't organized that way). As far as non-fans being able to understand the show's plot, I don't think the character list really does the job. I don't think any of these X-Files articles have a chance of reaching FA (except maybe the main one). GA is a possibility though -- just look at how many Simpsons episodes are GA, and many of them mainly contain a plot synopsis. Not that I'm so concerned with GA and FA anyway. Equazcion (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well information like that should be included to eiter the Syndicate (The X-Files) and/or the Colonist (The X-Files) page and other pages for that kind of information. But they are not complete storywise. And second, summaries and plot information on wikipedia should not be written to detailed, according to a Wikipedia rule. + We have over hundreds of episode for The X-Files, all of the mythology episodes from 1-6, with the exception of two episodes.

See below

• Colonist (The X-Files)
• Syndicate (The X-Files)
• Alien Bounty Hunter
• Alien rebel
• Black oil
• List of "Monster-of-the-Week" characters in The X-Files
• The Lone Gunmen
• Samantha Mulder
• Cigarette Smoking Man
• X-File

You can add the missing or not clear enough information into these articles. --TIAYN (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I could do that, but again, that doesn't accomplish making it easier for non-fans to understand the plot. Just because I plan to organize the plot according to its elements doesn't mean it will be excessively detailed -- not even necessarily more detailed than your chronology is. It will just be organized differently. Equazcion (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be stuck in this discussion. The story elements are included in the chronolocial summary and how they created is/or is going to be included to the production section. Your version will make it harder for non-fans or newcomers, newcomers won't have a clue about who Dana Scully is. Your version just does not make sense for me, and at the sound of it, you want it to become like the Lost and Stargate mythology pages which are totally chaotic.

Its your organizing of the page which gets me off balance, it just does not make sense. You want to duplicate information, which means that there are no need for seperate articles. Using seperate articles makes more sense. And a short but easy introduction is on The X-Files page here on wiki, which links to the main story devices and arc's. --TIAYN (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Show me how you want to change the article in a sandbox of your or mine, and we can work it from there? Would that be preferable? --TIAYN (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Disparate

I took 'disparate' off the description of the character's storylines, since I do not believe the storylines are disparate, but rather it is each character's individual approach to the subject matter of their investigations which is disparate. Fox's list of possible culprits is much wider than Scully's. It's the way they look at the cases that is different. 'Disparate investigative approaches', or something like that--Neptunerover (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mythology

It's insane that the whole article misuses the term mythology over and over. Made up fictional plots are not mythology. At best they may be a mythos, but honestly even that is stretching things. It's just a story arc. The article needs to be retitled and rewritten. DreamGuy (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That's the term used by the creators of the series and by books written on the subject. We report on how things are recorded in sources, and that's how this is recorded. For a quick reference, there are four official DVD releases which use the term "mythology" prominently, beginning with The X-Files Mythology, Volume 1 – Abduction. GRAPPLE X 01:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

X FILES SEASON 10

The series have continued in comic book formed published by IDW, the executive producer is still Chris Carter and it's considered canonical, information about the developments of the mythology in the comic books should be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.245.202.237 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Considered "canonical" by whom? This would have to be something that is discussed and agreed on by the group considering a comic book done 11 yrs after the end of the series is questionable to me. Ckruschke (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

" Carter confirmed, yes, the comic is indeed canon." http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=47033 --187.245.202.237 (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

ok... Ckruschke (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

This appears to be a thing these days, ever since Joss Whedon came out with Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight after the TV series concluded following its seventh season, making sure everyone knew that the new comic was both canon and considered the next "season" of Buffy. He continued this format through additional "seasons" of the Buffy comics, as well as Angel when its television run concluded. Several other franchises have adopted the same nomenclature / approach. Transitive Sam (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Now that there is an actual TV season 10, this article needs to better differentiate it from the comic series that came after the season 9 finale that was also called "Season 10". I think it's just a matter of a minor structure change and maybe one explanatory sentence. I'm willing to take a stab at it, but I wanted to know if anyone had any strong feelings or suggestions I should keep in mind. Transitive Sam (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that, now that there is an actual TV season 10, the "Season 10" comic series has been rendered non-canon and probably shouldn't be mentioned in this article. Maybe a brief mention somewhere, but I definitely think the Season 10 subsection of the article's "Chronology" section should be rewritten with the mythology-related plot points of the TV season 10 rather than the comics season 10. That being said, Transitive Sam, if you'd rather wait until after the season finale airs to make these changes, I'd understand. Zuko Halliwell (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

List of episodes

Can @Trust Is All You Need:, @Jonlighthall:, @Boshaus: et al please quit the edit warring over this? There's no harm in having an episode list here, but the article List of The X-Files episodes, which is linked from the "see also" section here, marks out all the mythology episodes already anyway. So try discussing the damn thing instead of edit warring and throwing out false accusations of vandalism. GRAPPLE ^X 16:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Since the mythology episodes have been released as stand-alone editions of the series, it is appropriate to have a stand-alone list of the episodes which are included in the mythology. So, yes, while the information can be derived from the List of The X-Files episodes, a concise re-listing in this article is pertinent and appropriate.--Jon Lighthall (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue with having a list of the mythology episodes is. The most applicable section in the wiki guidelines to me would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists#Lists_of_works_and_timelines , as this seems most similar to a list of works applicable to the mythology episodes. This list does belong in this article as it is not best presented as prose. There have been many people that have been adding the list back versus one user, @Trust Is All You Need:, who keeps removing it. He is tagging it as vandalism when it clearly does not meet the definition. Boshaus (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the list is germane to the article and is well within the wiki style guidelines. Legitimate objections to the inclusion of the list should be discussed here.--Jon Lighthall (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Just went through the list of episodes elsewhere and adding the ones that are on here and missing from those lists where others have removed them. I'm inclined to err on the side of keeping any debated mythology episodes marked as mythology episodes, so that those who wish to watch the series' mythology without anything else do not miss anything. I see no reason why there is a benefit to not marking an episode if it might be less mythological than others. 82.45.3.234 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I (@Raz0r611:) just registered an account, so that I can say that having the episodes here is extremely helpful. I'm binge watching now and this list helps me skip the monster-of-the week episodes (I hope I don't break any rules by writing here - my first comment). I can find the old page in history (so I'll be okay anyway), but I think the list of episodes is very helpful.

Removed "Jump the Shark" from the mythology list. In its dedicated article Jump_the_Shark_(The_X-Files) it is correctly listed as "monster of the week". And I can confirm that it is unrelated to the mythology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.38.140 (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mythology of The X-Files. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://space.com/sciencefiction/tv/xfiles_duchovny_000518_wg.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mythology of The X-Files. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090819153630/http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/04/28/chriscarter/print.html to http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/04/28/chriscarter/print.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707095742/http://www.xfiles.com/ to http://www.xfiles.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"Episodes" section AGAIN

IF THERE IS GOING TO BE A LIST WITH A DESCRIPTION AT THE TOP THAT SAYS

This list of mythology episodes is taken from official sources, The X-Files Mythology range of DVDs and the book The Complete X-Files: Behind the Series, the Myths and the Movies. Differences between the DVDs and the book are shown, where appropriate.

THEN THE LIST SHOULD BE EXACTLY THAT AND NOTHING ELSE

IF PEOPLE ARE "IMPROVING" IT THEN THE PAGE SHOULD BE LOCKED Foogus (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

full citation needed

full citation needed —fullcitationneeded (t•c) 04:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)