Jump to content

Talk:The X-Files season 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Season 10?

[edit]

Isn't this technically the tenth season of the show? Jmj713 (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being referred to as that. Much like other TV series revivals lately (24: Live Another Day, Heroes Reborn and the upcoming Twin Peaks revival), they're referred to as "event series" (miniseries) because they're not a typical "season" and of course, because of the large gap between when the original series ended. And also, season 10 technically already exists, in comic book form, The X-Files Season 10. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how they'll connect the comics with the miniseries, considering they said it is canon. Illegitimate Barrister 14:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just speculation on my part, but it's possible they'll un-canonize it. The animated Shalka Doctor (ninth incarnation) in Doctor Who was considered canon after the show was put on hiatus in 1989, but was un-canonized in 2005 when the show returned with an official live-action ninth incarnation. Alex|The|Whovian 00:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suspicious that's the case as well. Carter mentioned in an interview that he's not going to let any of the stories from the comics sway how this miniseries unfolds. I think it's best to view them as existing in two separate universes, kind of like how the 90s comics worked.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this being referred to a a miniseries anywhere, just as a reboot (which is incorrect), a revival, or continuation. Because it's been said that another season is possible, this realy should be Season 10 after all. Jmj713 (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source as to where this miniseries is referred to as Season 10 (it's also referred to as a miniseries in the multitude of references used in this article). Alex|The|Whovian 02:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it referred to as "Season 10", "reboot", "revival" many times, but very rarely as "miniseries". In fact, Google News returns this article as its first result for "x-files miniseries" and overall 7,600 hits. "Revival" gets 19,700. "Reboot": 25,500. And "Season 10" returns way more with 95,700. So, in my estimation, jugding by media coverage, and simply logically, this should be renamed The X-Files (season 10). Also, there's even an article on what to call it, pretty amusing. For these reasons I'll make the move. Jmj713 (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your 'logic' is rather a blatant example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Just because some people have (erroneously) referred to this as the tenth season does not make it so.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NAME regarding how an article should be titled: "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent"; "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." Most reliable sources, as shown above, refer to this as "Season 10". Jmj713 (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What Google searchers call it is not the same as what it's actually known as. It's a miniseries. A miniseries is not the same thing as a full season. Please understand this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This absolutely should not be kept at "season 10", given that a canon The X-Files Season 10 (and 11!) already exists; I would suggest The X-Files (2015 TV series) as an alternative. GRAPPLE X 15:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comics are not canon. Jmj713 (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, they were published and as such create a need for a clearly un-ambiguous title. The comics were explicitly titled "Season 10", the revival has not been. So we definitely shouldn't have two articles whose names differ only in punctuation, and we really shouldn't title an article on an assumption. GRAPPLE X 15:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, nothing in that link states a lack of canon status, just that the two media will have storylines which aren't re-used. GRAPPLE X 15:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new season of a series and we have standard naming rules for such articles: Title (season #). The comic series can remain as is, there's already a disambig notice added. If need be, a "(comic)" disambig could further be added to the tile. As far as canon, Star Wars also recently de-canonized all of its "extended universe" literature. This is nothing new.Jmj713 (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless if the comic is canon or not, the comic is still called Season 10. I agree with Grapple X's suggestion, and use The X-Files (2016 TV series). I believe "season 10" should only be used is there's a source from Fox or Chris Carter, explicitly referring to this as season 10. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeing with Grapple and Drovethrughosts here. A third-party, non-Fox-related site referred to it as "season 10", but on the Official Fox/X-Files website, nowhere is the term 'season 10' to be found. It's referred to as an "event series". And much like Heroes Reborn (miniseries) isn't Heroes Reborn (season 5), or Stakes is not Adventure Time (season 7.2) this should not be The X-Files (season 10).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to The X-Files (2016 miniseries). I figured this will work since there's rumors flying around that Fox is going to make more of these.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please undo your move. It's not supported by media coverage and we title things according to custom as well as reliable sources. I've cited my sources above. As far as your examples, these all involve title changes or subtitles (don't forget 24: Live Another Day). Jmj713 (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no official basis for "season 10", so any title should use a clean, wikipedia-standard disambiguation term rather than creating a title. As such, "2016 TV series" or "2016 miniseries" are the best logical options. This may be the tenth television season of the series, but that is not the same as it being "season 10" (for example, the re-launch of Dallas was a continuation, canonically, of the original series, but we list it as Dallas (2012 TV series), not Dallas (season 15). GRAPPLE X 16:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The miniseries (aka, an event series, per Fox) will air in 2016 (per [http://tvline.com/2015/05/11/fox-fall-tv-schedule-scream-queens-tuesday-x-files-midseason/ TVLine). As for the sources that refer to this as the tenth season, you found one source that isn't affiliated with Fox. Should we then use all the sources that referred to this as a "reboot" too? The answer is no. We shouldn't use the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Also a miniseries doesn't have to invoke a subtitle. They just commonly do.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you are jumping around with your replies, but I addressed this in a reply to you above. Jmj713 (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion is silly. I mean, the official promo from Fox refers to it as a "6-episode event", not a season.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter what Fox is referring to when mentioning this series. Is Dallas always referred to as "Dallas, the 2012 TV series"? The article title should follow Wikipedia's naming conventions, sometimes even in spite of official titles. Jmj713 (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the google search hits above, I thought perhaps I should mention: when I search it, yes, I get search results for the television event referred to here, but I also get a significant number of results referring to the comics title, perhaps even most of the results are aout the title. Seeing as part of this discussion rests on it supposedly being the most widely used title in reference to the television event, I thought perhaps I'd mention it? At the moment, I am in favor of the current title. It easily identifies what the topic is, it is not easily confused with the comic, and it best cleaves to the official description of it. I, for one, have never seen it referred to as "Season 10" in my social media circles, but that's irrelevant really. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NCTV, the disambiguation in this article's title should remain "(miniseries)" rather than "(2016 miniseries)" since no other X-Files miniseries exists. Please do not move the page without first gathering consensus / creating a move discussion here. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, Fox is calling this "Season 10". [1] What are our thoughts?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd wait to see what any home release comes titled as. Any other source I've seen for this is just calling it The X-Files, as though it's another entity with the same title as the first (like how the sequel to The Thing is also called The Thing). That common usage is currently reflected in our title. My gut feeling is that this is how it will ultimately pan out, that this will be 2016's The X-Files, a follow-up to 1993's The X-Files. As it stands we're currently abiding by WP:COMMONNAME so I'm happy to wait for any change in general usage. GRAPPLE X 22:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this: [2].--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That just looks like numbering of seasons inherent to their VOD system. Is there an actual press release from Fox referring to it as Season 10? That would mean a lot more. --SubSeven (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Official Amazon page: "Thirteen years after the original series run, the next chapter of THE X-FILES is a six-episode event series.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B019EG1WC0?ref_=aiv_dp_season_select — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.186.104 (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why was update Removed

[edit]

Just wondering why this was removed

January 12, 2015 Gillian Anderson appierd as a guest on the podcast The Nerdist Podcast where they started the hashtag #xfiles2015.[1][2] Due to the media attention shortly after on

Andcbii (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Twitter, how is a hashtag relevant? We're also supposed to believe that Fox brought back The X-Files because a hashtag was started? What? Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The back ground section was talking about what events transpired to bring about the miniseries. The Hastag is a part of that background. Yes, if a hashtag is popular enough a company could take action. If you listen to the podcast Gillian Anderson doesn't sound like she would even be interested at first. But the hosts tell here it's a good idea and that they would watch it. The article I linked to even explains how fan-backed campaigns are having an effect on media companies. I would think one of the main characters in the show openly supporting a movement to bring back the show is worth mentioning. If you don't like the "Due to the media attention" then just delete that part. Andcbii (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "NERDIST PODCAST: GILLIAN ANDERSON". The Nerdist Podcast. Retrieved January 12, 2015.
  2. ^ "#XFILES2015 AND HOW FAN-BACKED CAMPAIGNS ARE REDEFINING HOLLYWOOD". Nerdist.com. Retrieved March 25, 2015.

Redirects for future expansion

[edit]

For now, these pages serve as helpful redirects, but they can be expanded if contributors wish to create articles about specific episodes:

Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge accepted.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like Hoping this miniseries can achieve Good topic status. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The X-Files has a pretty good track record. @Grapple X:, @Glimmer721:, do you have any plans on working on these episodes? I'd take one or two if you all want to as well. Granted this is still two months away.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Going solely by title alone, "Babylon" interests me, but yeah, it's very early days yet. GRAPPLE X 22:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good topic template

[edit]
edit | discuss
The X-Files (season 10)
7 articles

I've created a draft template for a potential Good topic about the miniseries. Feel free to update as the season continues. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. @Grapple X:, @Another Believer:, do we want to divide and conquer like the days of old when we were working on the episodes? Or do we all just want to work collectively? I feel there's probably enough reviews/production info to get an article for "My Struggle" started.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we got ourselves our first article: "My Struggle" (The X-Files). At this point, it's kind of just a chunky shell of an article, based largely off of this article. Feel free to add stuff if you'd like.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also made an article for "Mulder and Scully Meet the Were-Monster", although that's pretty bare-boned.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 December 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Might be worth revisiting at some point, but clearly there is a consensus in favour of using "miniseries" at the moment. Jenks24 (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The X-Files (miniseries) → The X-Files (2015 TV series) – It's not a "miniseries". As the article's lede makes clear, it's being billed as an "event series", a term which is synonymous with a "limited (television) series" not a traditional "miniseries" – IOW, this has the format of a "short" regular TV series, not a traditional "miniseries" (for an example of the latter, see, for example: Childhood's End (miniseries)). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose. It just feels like we're nit-picking here, creating busy-work for no actual gain. The article for miniseries includes the (sourced) definition of the term as "a limited run program of more than two and less than the 13-part season or half season block associated with serial or series programming", which this show clearly meets. GRAPPLE X 09:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And important rebuttal point to this is that the two sources you're citing both date to the late 80s, about two decades before the term "limited series" was even coined. So I'm don't think they're definitive in modern usage... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with Grapple here. This is needless splitting of hairs. Miniseries = event series.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you're not right about this – miniseries is a far older term (dating to the 60s and 70s) which effectively applies to a series of TV movies (i.e. 2–3 hours in length) that air on sequential nights (e.g. Winds of War, Childhood's End). "Limited (or event) series" is a term that's only about 10 years old that refers to a regular weekly 1-hour (or in the case of something like Galavant, 30-minute) series that only airs approx. 6–13 episodes. It's vastly preferable if Wikipedia doesn't contribute to the confusions between the two terms. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would again refer back to our own article on the term miniseries, which gives a much broader definition than yours and cites it to several different sources. We're only going by what's already defined elsewhere, which is all we're ever meant to. GRAPPLE X 19:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Geez, guys, can you give me a few hours?! I'm working on this myself (if anyone wants to see what I'm working on, on the "limited series" end, check my Sandbox). As for "The X-Files" reboot, I'm going to check the sourcing for that too – but if none of the press articles refer to this as a "miniseries", we shouldn't either (and a very quick perusal of this article that I just did doesn't seem to show any source calling this a "miniseries"...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I brought this up in the "Season 10" discussion above. Most sources do not refer to this as a miniseries. Jmj713 (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's just a smattering of sources (all reliable) that refer to it as a 'miniseries'. I think claiming that there are no sources out there calling it a miniseries is a little hyperbolic. With that being said, I'd be more willing to have this renamed "The X-Files (event series)", since "The X-Files (2015 TV series)" implies it's some sort of reboot or remake, when in fact it's a direct continuation of the 1993 series.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, wouldn't it be (2016 TV series) because it won't air until after the start of 2016?  ONR  (talk)  11:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Naval Rooftops (talk • contribs)
Fair enough. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Miniseries is accurate and for naming conventions purposes, consistent with other similar programs. 'Event series' is a cute PR term. The statement that no sources can be found calling it a miniseries is laughable, see Google. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not "accurate" – "limited series" is the accurate term. And no one said "no sources"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Future titling

[edit]

At the end of the article, it states "I don't know that I could do a 20-episode version of this show at this point in my life, and I don't know that Gillian could. But I think everybody is open ended on what happens after this. Certainly, we didn't bring it back with the idea of ending it." Should the series continue with a miniseries each year, what will be the naming convention for both the title and series overview on the LoE page? Alex|The|Whovian? 06:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They would just be disambiguated by the year of first broadcast in that case; for example this would become "The X-Files (2016 miniseries)". That is, however, assuming that any future new series don't add any subtitles like they did with 24. GRAPPLE X 08:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fox's website refers to this as Season 10[3]. The TV listings (Zap2it) refer to the upcoming episodes as S10 E01, and S10 E02. Surely this article should be at The X-Files (season 10) not here. Fox's on-line schedule calls this the "Season Premiere". Nfitz (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones connection

[edit]

American radio host, conspiracy theorist, filmmaker and author Alex Jones claims Chris Carter was inspired by the conspiracy topics he covers on his show as matters of current events for the themes of The X-Files series reboot, and less so by alien encounters and the paranormal, as in the original series in the 1990s. This might be worth a mention in the article. — QuicksilverT @ 18:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to include this if Carter himself said it. As of right now, it seems kind of controversial without further evidence. My two cents.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the use of the word "miniseries"

[edit]

Some IP(s?) are persistent in arguing that the word "miniseries" needs to be supported by Fox in order to be used—which, frankly, is incorrect. It's a discrete, definable term which doesn't need to be backed up by the broadcaster any more than we need Fox to explicitly state that a film is a film or a podcast is a podcast. Taking sources from our own page miniseries, we have the definition "four to six episodes of various lengths" sourced to Leslie Halliwell and Philip Purser in Halliwell's Television Companion, 1987; or "a limited run program of more than two and less than the 13-part season or half season block associated with serial or series programming", as described by Stuart Cunningham in Textual Innovation in the Australian Historical Mini-series, 1989. This series clearly meets these definitions, and we don't need a television network focussed on modern marketing buzzword nonsense like "event series" to tell us otherwise, just like we don't need Faber & Faber to tell us what a hardback is. Some things genuinely do just take common sense. GRAPPLE X 15:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify (not that it seems to be making a difference), there is no need for "an official source from Fox" to add anything to this article. WP:RS, the guideline for which sources can be used, makes no distinction favouring the producer of a work and those who critique it. In fact, primary sources—those who create or market something—are considered less worthwhile, as they will have an obvious bias, than secondary sources (those which are not connected to a subject but discuss or analyse it). So discounting opinions solely because they did not come from a television network with a vested interest in promoting things according to their own marketing buzzwords is entirely counter to how Wikipedia works. GRAPPLE X 22:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an admin we can talk to? I posted on the noticeboard but no one has responded.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above uses absurd logic. The last aired season of Continuum was 6 episodes and it was neither categorized nor considered a miniseries. Many tv series from the UK air 6 episode seasons and again none are categorized or considered to be miniseries. The X-Files continuation is no different. A miniseries by definition is "a television program that tells a story in a predetermined, limited number of episodes." That does not describe The X-Files. The 2016 6-episode continuation of the tv series is open-ended whereas both FOX and Chris Carter envision more episodes beyond the 6 that were ordered [4]. If that isn't enough, perhaps some perspective is due. It's bad enough that the dictionary definition of miniseries is inadequate in describing The X-Files tv series continuation, but to go to bat for some that is so blatantly incorrect is a disservice to everyone as it intentionally clouds the waters and is intentionally misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.254.90.195 (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) American TV =/= British TV, so that argument is totally flawed.
2) The last season of Continuum was billed as a season. The X-Files continuation was not. So once again, totally flawed.
3) I don't see how Carter wanting more episodes has anything to do with this. Either way, Fox billed it as an 'event series', implying it is a self-contained 'series' (hence the note at the front of the article)
4) Wikipedia runs on verifiability from third-party sources. Provide third-party sources for your blatant opinions, then we'll talk.
5) And my favorite one: "[It] is a disservice to everyone as it intentionally clouds the waters and is intentionally misleading". Explain how this in anyway is misleading? Or a disservice? Who is wounded? Who is injured from using the term 'miniseries'?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

This episode is mythologic for sure! Please, mark it with the double dagger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.223.14.230 (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While we do mark out the mythology episodes, we usually take an additional source to do so—the Mythology DVD sets, for example, but other print sources and the like have been used too. If we have something that independently defines the episode as such, we can add it straight in. I imagine the usual online reviews (The AV Club will cover the show, for example, and they go into a lot of depth) will probably mention it and can be used as a stopgap for each myth episode as they air until we can condense everything into one source in retrospect. GRAPPLE X 16:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I swear I read somewhere that Carter said "Founder's Mutation" was a mythology episode, but I can't for the life of me remember where.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per this source, just the first and last are mythology. Though this article states, "that the first, second, and sixth episodes would be mythology episodes". I think I was the one who added that, I must have misread the source originally, because the IGN article states, "Is Half Mythology, Half Standalone Episodes" but Carter's exact quote is: "We start with a mythology episode and then we're going to do standalone episodes for the next four. And then we bookend it with mythology episodes at the end of the season too." I'm not sure where the idea that the second episode was mythology. Again, I think that was my bad. I'm going to fix it. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Red Museum at second season was mythologic, this also is. The "monster-of-the-week" has alien DNA, and the episode is all about the government experiences with alien DNA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.223.14.230 (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 January 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to The X-Files (season 10). I'm also deleting the DAB page that was previously at the 'season 10' name per WP:CSD#G6. I didn't see much support in the discussion for '(TV season 10)' in place of '(season 10)'. You can discuss further about the best title for The X-Files Season 10 (comics) and whether hatnotes or other DABS should be created for other material that may have been referred to as 'season 10'. See also a discussion below this one on talk and see RMTR at Special:Permalink/703970223. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move: The X-Files (miniseries) → The X-Files (TV season 10) – The FOX Channel, creator of the The X-Files TV show, refers the TV's 6-episode pack to as the "X-Files Season 10" and not as the "X-Files Miniseries". More details: Prior to its airing date in January 2016, the said 6-episode pack was widely referred to with various names, such as the "Miniseries", or as the "Event Series" or as the "Reboot Series", etc. However, the FOX Channel, since their release date, calls it The X-Files Season 10, as you can see on their official page here [5], where the TV episodes are hosted and available for watching. Additionally, the FOX Channel codenamed each of the episodes in that pack as being part of that Season 10. More specifically, the first episode in the pack, My Struggle, is codenamed by FOX Channel as "Season 10 - Episode 1 - My Struggle", Same goes for the next one too: Founder's Mutation is in fact codenamed "Season 10 - Episode 2 - Founder's Mutation", and so on. On the other hand, the term "Miniseries" is nowhere to be seen on the official page of the show and it is totally missing. Shouldn't Wikipedia be updated accordingly to reflect this reality? SilentResident (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn on this, because it is referred to as "season 10", but only on that one part of the website. Pretty much everywhere else, it's referred to as "event series", "event", "miniseries", or something of the like. At this point in time, I oppose (I support this now, see below) the move until these episodes are released on DVD/Blu-ray, as that release will objectively determine if Fox considers this a "season" or a variant of a "miniseries".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But, "that one part of the website" is the actual page, the main page, the official page for the Series's current episodes. It is where the episodes are officially hosted and codenamed... --SilentResident (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. It was mentioned in an earlier section here that their VOD system is titling it that by default, as no other press seem to be using the title (the trailers all just use The X-Files, as do media reviews, etc). I had figured the best practice was to wait for a home media release to know for sure what they're titling it, but in the interim. WP:COMMONNAME seems the best thing to default to while there's still this ambiguity. Lastly, even if it is retitled as a tenth season, there already exists an official comic series named The X-Files Season 10, so further disambiguation between both articles would be necessary. GRAPPLE X 23:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In the Website, the 6-episode pack not only is called "Season 10", but Fox Channel listed and distributed digitally each episode on its official website (if you click on the video) as the following:
Season 10 Episode 1: My Struggle
Season 10 Episode 2: Founder's Mutation
Note: I have seen NOWHERE in the Fox's official website the pattern used here in Wikipedia, which is "Miniseries Episode ID: Title Name". Fox calls its episodes by that pattern: "Season 10 Episode ID: Title Name". From the moment Fox calls its episodes this way, who are we to argue? I fail to see why Wikipedia has to stick with a different and unverified pattern instead of Fox's one. Season 10 Episode 1 is a FACT (being used by Fox officially), while Miniseries Episode 1 is not verified at all, nor has Fox used it at all...
--SilentResident (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Apples and oranges. The term "miniseries" isn't being used as a title, but a disambiguator. We're not saying it's called "miniseries", but that this is the entity named The X-Files which is a miniseries, in contrast to The X-Files (film) or The X-Files (composition). It's already verified, no matter what the official title of the programme is, that it is a miniseries. GRAPPLE X 23:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, even if it is a disambiguator, couldn't it be better if we use the one (or at least something close to it) the Fox Channel actually uses on the website, instead of using here in Wikipedia a word that isn't even present on the episode's webpage and we don't know if it was really official after all? "Miniseries" IS NOT EVEN present on X-Files Season 10's official episode page... Wikipedia should call the Season 10 the same way Fox does on its Official Page where the 6 episodes are hosted, rather than a using a disambiguator that isn't even on that page. --SilentResident (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is verified that this is a miniseries. Yes. I am not disputing that. But Wikipedia couldn't be referring to the product (the 6 episodes), not by their technical characteristic (miniseries instead of actual season). Wikipedia should refer to the product the same way the product is presented to the viewers. So far, Fox presented its product as "Season 10" on its official website, even if it is verified that it is a miniseries. So, Wikipedia could reflect this. The miniseries are miniseries on the technical aspect, but it seems this is not their official title. Fox calls them "Season 10" now. And this should be taken into account for the page's naming, even if temporarily only, until the 6-episode pack is formally released on DVD. Given the absense of any other better disambiguators for that product, Fox's "Season 10" is better than anything else for now. From the moment the product lacks any VERIFIED names, the closest best thing for it could be the name the company presented the product with. --SilentResident (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it doesn't need to be on any official Fox page. We wouldn't need an official page to tell us that a film is a film or that a book is a book. GRAPPLE X 23:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing my point here... Fox published the product digitally to its viewers with a name (Season 10), not with a technical characteristic (Miniseries). We all know that this is a miniseries. But Fox presented them with a name when it released it for digital distribution. Wikipedia should be updated to reflect this reality. We can't stick forever with the generic disambiguation "Miniseries" when Fox calls them "Season 10" on its official hosting page. My proposal is that Season 10 replaces the Miniseries for the time being, until sources finally come that resolve it once and for all: the first is a product's digital name and the second is a product's characteristic - Wikipedia should use the first as its disambiguator, not the second. --SilentResident (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's ignorant to disregard what a creator calls their own work. If FOX is advertising the `2016 event series` as "Season 10", in an official capacity no less, then any sane person should engage common sense and call it "Season 10". All this stupid nonsense going on claiming that it's a miniseries when FOX themselves have never advertised it as such is absurd to say the least. Unfortunately some people think ignoring OFFICIAL sources in not valid, but their own personal opinions (however conjured up) are. Calling this season "Season 10" of the tv series makes complete sense while calling it anything else makes no sense at all.
Further, that a user above claims The X-Files is a miniseries (regardless of "contrast") is laughable at best. And further to claim "it's already verified, no matter what the official title of the programme is, that it is a miniseries" is again, laughable at best. "Verified" by who? Certainly not FOX, the creators of the show, or the actors themselves. The claims that user makes suffers from absolutely zero credibility. AGAIN, ignoring what FOX themselves have to say about it is blatantly ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.254.90.195 (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree, it is better that we call the creator's work with a name the creator chose for it, than sticking with a disambiguation some Wikipedia users chose for it... And, if I am allowed to draw examples from other similar cases that happened in the past, in the TV's industry, then the The Walking Dead (season 1) and its 6 episodes, could be such an example. To some, technically it was more a mini-series, while to others it was a normal season. But this doesn't matter. What matters is that the creator, AMC Channel, referred to it as the "Season 1" and Wikipedia respected AMC's decision. Wikipedia should also respect Fox's decision, regardless. Fox used the name "Season 10" for its digital distribution of its episodes. This should be respected for now. And of course, if, at a later time, the Fox Channel decide to release the same episodes in DVD-something format, but with a different or another name again, Wikipedia should respect that and have its article be updated accordingly. -- SILENT RESIDENT 01:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is Fox only referred to it as such in one place on their website. Every other promo has it labelled as an "event series". So we're in a pickle, because that's two different labels used by the same parent entity.--Gen. Quon (Talk)
"Event Series" is not really a name itself, to be honest... Fox called it many things, from as far as my memory remembers. They called it "Reboot series", "Event Series". "Miniseries", and more. But that from a technical respective. This is not a problem. Its usual. It is marketing after all... But our case here is VERY different: now Fox didn't use any generic or contradicting technical classifications this time. Fox, this time, presented its episodes with a name. Season 10 is a name, while Event-Series is not really a name... And this name is not posted on any random or not-so-important or irrelevant parts of their official website. Fox added the name Season 10, on the VERY page in wish this said season is hosted and distributed to us the customers/viewers! This is a very important detail. Regardless of how Fox called it in the past (miniseries, event series, etc, etc), the episodes are distributed/shared as "Season 10" and nothing else. Period. -- SILENT RESIDENT 01:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The official Twitter does say this. Honestly, I'm not hostile to a change, I just want it to be 'right'.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all what I can say is that the current disambiguation/name "Miniseries" is far from being 'right' for this Wikipedia article, and this is one more reason for a chance to be supported... The name I have suggested (Season 10), may be or may not be 100% right, but is the name the creator (FOX Channel) chose for its work (episodes) and of course this is towards the right direction. On the other hand, the disambiguation "Miniseries" not only is not right, but also goes against Wikipedia's rules. -- SILENT RESIDENT 02:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the follow, "Honestly, I'm not hostile to a change, I just want it to be 'right'.--Gen. Quon", I ask does it make more sense to follow FOX's lead in how they identify the show with the audience, or does it make more sense to completely disregard that and go with something generic based only on a dictionary definition? I see no logic in labeling this anything other than what people see when they turn their tv on and check the guide, or go to the shows own website. There's an abundance of one type of labeling, and a total lack of the other. It's hard to see how that's confusing for anyone but at least it's being discussed, which is a step in the right direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.254.90.195 (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All the major websites covering television do categorize the event series as "Season 10", including IMDb [6], Zap2it [7], TV Guide [8], TV.com [9], Metacritic [10], Rotten Tomatoes [11], epguides [12], as well as FOX's own site [13], Hulu [14], Amazon [15], Microsoft [16] and so on. I would say it makes sense to name it Season 10?. Since all these pages are major, and they all use "Season 10", kinda making "Season 10" a common name for the event series, hence WP:COMMONNAME.
Also, you guys are becoming very hostile towards each other. Mymis (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you, and a note: all the P2P torrent sharing websites too, even the major ones, such as the KickassTorrents and The Pirate Bay, are calling it "The X-Files Season 10". Not that it helps really, but it is worth mentioning, since, everyone, be it that he/she is watching it online, or downloading it on his/her computer, the name stays always the same: "Season 10" -- SILENT RESIDENT 01:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is listed by IMDb, RT, A.V. Club, and others as season 10. Perhaps the term "miniseries" originated from media coverage prior to its release? Whatever Fox's official nomenclature, it seems the bulk of sources have decided on calling this a new season. Qzd (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Wikipedia's rules are VERY clear: in cases where both the TV show and the comics share the same name, the word Comics in parenthesis is added after the official title. Example: the The X-Files is for the TV series, while the The X-Files (comics) is for the comics. Wikipedia is very clear in these rules, I fail to understand why people are confusing it. I reiterate my proposal, so we can comply with Wikipedia's naming rules: the article The X-Files Season 10, which is about the comics, needs to be renamed into The X-Files Season 10 (comics). and the current article, must be renamed The X-Files (season 10). It is as simple as that. Please, it is important to not confuse things and keep up the article's name with the naming conventions of Wikipedia.


For the TV series, the articles have to be:
The X-Files
The X-Files (season 1)
The X-Files (season 2)
The X-Files (season 3)
The X-Files (season 4)
The X-Files (season 5)
The X-Files (season 6)
The X-Files (season 7)
The X-Files (season 8)
The X-Files (season 9)


And for Comic series, the articles have to be:
The X-Files (comics)


This is the only ay so we can keep things in order and not to cause confusion among the Wikipedia readers. Thank you. -- SILENT RESIDENT 13:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this rule is as "very clear" as you make out, would you care to point to the specific MOS section which says some articles need not be disambiguated just because they're for TV shows? GRAPPLE X 13:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that when comic and TV articles are sharing the same name, couldn't they follow the naming convention/disambiguation examples of their related articles, so the people don't get confused? -- SILENT RESIDENT 13:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The parent article is The X-Files; anything else which shares a similar name is being disambiguated from that. The important outcome is that a reader should be able to arrive at an article meaning to arrive there, so that someone searching for the TV series will not find the comic, nor vice versa. There is no hard and fast rule on how much an article needs to be disambiguated based on the uniqueness of its title, which has led to articles which are technically distinct from each other being moved to more defined titles. For example, we once had Field Trip (The X-Files) at the title Field Trip, because wikipedia's software treats this differently to field trip without capitals; although these were two distinct article titles, the episode was moved to its current location to avoid any confusion which may have arisen from a technically correct, but awkward in practice, approach. So keeping this distinct from the other "season 10" article is a good idea; leaving a disambiguation page between the two would stop any confusion. GRAPPLE X 14:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree absolutely! That could be a very good idea! -- SILENT RESIDENT 14:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, GRAPPLE X you have initially voted "oppose" to the move request. However, may I ask if, taking into account our discussion, is the "oppose" still your position as of now? -- SILENT RESIDENT 14:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still oppose the move to the proposed title, as like I said I feel it would be better now as a disambiguation page; but I do now see that WP:COMMONNAME no longer applies and this should probably be moved to something else. GRAPPLE X 14:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is to be moved, I agree with Grapple's suggestions, that "The X-Files (season 10)" should be a disambiguation page pointing to "The X-Files Season 10 (comics)" and maybe "The X-Files (TV season 10)" (I think that's a little more compact than "TV series, season 10", but that's just my opinion)? This does mean that, as that IP up there pointed out, we'll have to add info about the original canned season (no biggie), and I have a feeling we'll have this discussion all over again when the DVD/Blu-ray set comes up, BUT that's in the future.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the IP brought to our attention the comics article of same name, I will be glad to make a Move Request for the Comics page as well so it has a disambiguator similar to The X-Files (comics). More specifically, how about: The X-Files Season 10 (comics) for comics, and The X-Files (TV season 10) for TV, and The X-Files Season 10 for the disambiguation page? But will you guys support the moves, then? -- SILENT RESIDENT 15:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would support The X-Files Season 10 (comics) and The X-Files (TV season 10); the dab page would probably be best at The X-Files (season 10), with The X-Files Season 10 redirecting to the dab page. GRAPPLE X 15:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same. I also made an edit that if and (most likely) when the page moves will hopefully clear up some of the confusion around the title.--Gen. Quon (Talk)
Done! The move request has been updated! The X-Files (miniseries) → The X-Files (TV season 10). But without your positive votes, this may fail, as here is about an equal ammount of Opposes and Supports, incl. your two opposing votes... -- SILENT RESIDENT 15:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went and struck out my oppose and added a support.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is great! I can go to the Season 10 Comic page, and make a move request for The X-Files Season 10 → The X-Files Season 10 (comics). Is that good? -- SILENT RESIDENT 15:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a no-brainer. Fox is very clearly calling it season 10. Same cast, writers, producers. Heck, even the opening is unchanged. We've also got independent media calling it Season 10 - such as the New York Times [19]. They've clearly gone out-of-their way to make it clear it's the same series. No where is it being called a mini-series, other than some very early pre-production chatter. Meanwhile, cast and crew have talked about doing another short season next year - what are we going to do, call it The X-Files (another miniseries)? Nfitz (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it would've been The X-Files (2016 miniseries) and The X-Files (2017 miniseries). But that's neither here nor there.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think article pages could be named based on personal opinions, and The X-Files (2016 miniseries) and The X-Files (2017 miniseries) are exactly that: personal opinions, Gen. Quon. The reason for the move is to comply with how the creator (channel) names its product (episodes). Nothing more, nothing less. But of course, your proposals, such as "The X-Files (2016 miniseries)" and "The X-Files (2017 miniseries)" could have been a nice solution if the creator named it just Miniseries without any further clarification / disambiguation. -- SILENT RESIDENT 22:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was saying; if these were to be called miniseries by Fox, and there were to be two (or more), then what I suggested above would be the titles, per the MoS. But since they're not, I said, "But that's neither here nor there." I was rebutting Nfitz's rhetorical question.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This should absolutely be moved the The X-Files (season 10). It's a complete continuation of the original series (seasons 1-9), not a separate new series. There very likely could be a season 11. !!!!
Fingers crossed!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is not "another rename discussion". There is a violation of Wikipedia's No Original Research Policy and a name is chosen for this article without strong sources to verify it. This is a mistake and this mistake better has to be corrected as soon as possible. The producer (FOX Channel), and everyone else in the world, are calling it The Season 10, not Miniseries. -- SILENT RESIDENT 21:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I came here looking for information about the new season and had to fumble around until I found it under "miniseries". Why it's called a miniseries here is beyond me when everywhere else, my Comcast Xfinity tv guide included, calls it season 10. The main X-Files page should be fixed also where it says X-Files only has 1-9 seasons and 1 miniseries. After reading these posts it's clear those in support have made their case and those who oppose haven't. The quicker it gets fixed the quicker incoming users can find what they're looking for without jumping through hoops. 71.35.176.6 (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question for @SilentResident:. Do we need to wait anymore? It's, like, 9 against 2.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just went ahead and did it. I feel that the editors have spoken.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, dear Gen. Quon, although I am not sure if it is good idea to close the request before 7 full days pass? Maybe the big ratio in favor of SUPPORT, can justify this early closure of the request. I thank everyone for their supportm including you, dear Gen. Quon, but things are NOT over yet... We have still a problem! I need your support on this page's Move Request too! Very important! -- SILENT RESIDENT 21:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably fine. If anyone is gonna get in trouble, it'll be my head in the smasher.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad this was finally decided after I had raised the issue back in March 2015 (almost a year ago!), however, the "TV" is a needless disambiguation. All TV seasons should follow the same article name structure, so the current TV season should be at The X-Files (season 10) and the comic should be at The X-Files Season 10 (comics) or stay at The X-Files Season 10. Jmj713 (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On this link: http://www.fox.com/the-x-files which had been posted, for me on the side where it says Full Episodes on Fox Now it says Season 1, then lists Mulder and Scully Meet Were Monster. Then underneath that it lists Season 10 and has first two episodes of this 'season'. Can anyone explain that? Glitch on their website? Mistake someone forgot to put zero after 1? But same even goes for on 'full episodes' page: http://www.fox.com/the-x-files/full-episodes. It lists the most recent episode as Season 1, and the previous 1 as Season 10. I'm not saying this shouldn't be called Season 10, I'm just questioning it after TWO mentions of apparently third episode being in Season 1. A new Season 1? Would they have really made a mistake and just forgotten the zero twice? Charlr6 (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that's just an error. It'll be nice to get a DVD release to clear up all this confusion.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Problem with the page move

[edit]
So why was this moved back to (miniseries)? Jmj713 (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My question as well. I thought that this was finally settled. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 18:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some editor reported to an admin that no consensus was reached here... which is just completely wrong.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because you moved the page prematurely, while it was still under discussion. Only now that it's closed should it be moved. Reach Out to the Truth 18:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, a user, User:Wikipedical, falsely reported to the administrators that no consensus has been reached here in the Talk Page about this move, and thus he requested that the move from The X-Files (miniseries) to The X-Files (TV Season 10) to be reverted... I am shocked and striken with disbelief how this now happened, because, as you see with your own eyes, a consensus has clearly been reached here in this talk page, but User:Wikipedical has a different opinion from us: he calls it a "False Consensus" and he asked for the move to be cancelled... You can read his Move Cancellation Request here if you want: [20] I am trying to revert this unfair decision by filling a revert request here: [21]. Lets hope someone will see it and correct it asap... -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the move was that it was done by an involved editor before the normal discussion had completed and compounded by the fact that the discussion was not closed and archived at that time. Wikipedical was entirely correct that the page was "Still being discussed on talk page, edit summary for move cited false consensus. Should be reverted until consensus is determined from discussion" and AnthonyAppleyard was entirely correct in complying with the technical request to revert until discussion was completed. There is now a further problem that the discussion is now archived by the proposer of a move. The proposer should virtually never close their own proposal. SilentResident, I recommend you revert your closure of the above proposal, and then just wait until an uninvolved administrator comes along and closes it. Btw, I have no opinion about the move itself; this is offered only as a friendly explanation of what happened so it can be avoided in the future. Station1 (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good lord. This is going to drag on longer than 7 days? This bureaucracy is why so many good editors leave Wikipedia.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, it is my fault that the page wasn't properly closed with the appropriate tag in time, and that because it is my very first time I organize/start a Page Move Request. In fact, I didn't knew how to update the Move Request Tag and how to add a Close Tag at the end of the discussion so it can be closed properly into a window with a green-colored background. I had trouble with that, but thanks to following another user's example (who closed a similar Move Request in the page The X-Files Season 10 (comics)), I finally learned the way, today, and now, the Close tags have been placed properly! My apologies for the inconvenience. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be too down on yourself. I goofed up as well.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this page yesterday to participate in the still-open discussion. When I saw the move was carried out by an editor who voted in the discussion during the discussion, I reported it. As I mentioned on the requested move page, it was completely inappropriate to move a page before a move discussion is closed, just as it would be to delete an article during an deletion discussion. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the above consensus of "Move from 'miniseries' to 'TV season 10'" being viewed as a valid result or do we need to reopen it and discuss further? I ask this after seeing that it has once again been BACK to 'miniseries' in the aftermath of this discussion. These page moves are making me dizzy. No matter the end result, I believe move-protection should be put in place to end it all. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 17:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, it's not being viewed as valid until an un-involved mod comes along and makes the decision. SilentResident and I apparently jumped the gun in the move, and I understand I made a mistake, but still. I was told that, even though there there were 2 negative votes and 9 supporting votes, 'no consensus was reached'. Frankly, this is just a beautiful example of the bureaucratization of this site. This whole issues has been in limbo for 12 days.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent news! The administrators finally put an end to the whole mess and this page is now, once and for ever, called The X-Files (season 10)! I hope everybody is now happy. Enjoy! :) -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:EdJohnston for settling and cleaning up the issue. The five relative links now are:
The X-Files (season 10) – TV season (this page)
The X-Files Season 10 (comics)
The X-Files Season 10 – Disambig for above
The X-Files: Season 10 – redirect to disambig
The X-Files (TV season 10) – redirect to this page
— CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is perfect! -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Viewer Count for episodes & Record breaking announcement from Fox

[edit]

Based on: http://www.fox.com/the-x-files/article/the-x-files-breaks-worldwide-ratings Shouldn't the viewership counts listed to each episode (my struggle being 21.4 million). In fact, this release from Fox has a bunch of information that could be useful on this page.

FOX PREMIERE OF THE X-FILES BREAKS WORLDWIDE RATINGS RECORDS WITH MORE THAN 50 MILLION VIEWERS IN FIRST THREE DAYS - See more at: http://www.fox.com/the-x-files/article/the-x-files-breaks-worldwide-ratings#sthash.crcxUZCR.dpuf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heycameron (talk • contribs) 00:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of a puffed up number, counting live viewing + DVR views views. I think it's general practice to put overnight views in the chart, and then mention the wider viewership in prose sections (which is the case for both the article for "My Struggle" and this page). Besides, if we put 21.4 million in the chart, we would ideally want to have all the ratings for every episode be the DVR + live ratings, and since we don't have that, it would be inconsistent.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

[edit]

Now that over half the season has aired, I believe it is now necessary to update the review section. Because mentioned that critics did get first three episodes to review, and now that the fourth episode is out the reviews for each episode so far should reflect the over-all season so far, and not just 'early' reviews. Be good for editors to search and gather different reviews from reliable sources and update the reception box, and even make mention of audience thoughts. 82.37.3.182 (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until something discusses the seasons as a whole, individual reviews should really be kept to episode articles; a retrospective of the whole run (which usually turns up when the home media releases drop) is better for the season article as it avoids the problem of synthesising an opinion on one thing from sources which really discuss different things. GRAPPLE X 12:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The season hasn't even been reviewed as a whole yet. Only individual episodes.
The review section mentions how the first episode received good reviews from a select crowd at New York Comic-Con. Then there are the pre-release reviews focusing on just My Struggle which were more mixed. Then underneath more pre-release reviews of the "next two episodes". The review section is not discussing the season as a whole, and purely clearly individual episodes.
So then by what you are saying perhaps we should then remove it all from main page and to the respective episodes?
I believe as Wikipedia is a constantly up-dating online encyclopaedia we should update as reviewers review season as it airs. First episode clearly received mixed reviews from critics but positive from audiences according to the Comic Con. The later episodes were reviewed more positively by critics. We can clearly see that in the reviews, as the critics do compare and say whether the most recent episode (at the time) is better or worse than last episode. We can use that and say for example "positive reception grew as the season progressed", which wouldn't be lying as we have the evidence to back it up which are the individual reviews. 82.37.3.182 (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reception of individual episodes may have grown, but it may be the case, for example, that critics were displeased with the overall pace of the season even if the components were well-received in isolation, or vice versa. To put it another way, you might like beef and you might like custard but beef trifle is not the logical result of that. The only thing that individual episode reviews can be used to comment on is individal episodes, which means we can collate them here in sch a way as to summarise each episode's reviews sequentially, but we can't create an overall impression of the season from that because one was not offered. GRAPPLE X 13:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Until something discusses the seasons as a whole, individual reviews should really be kept to episode articles". Clearly saying individual reviews should be kept on articles. But now saying that individual episode reviews that can be used here is to collate them to summarise each episodes reviews, but we can't create an over-all impression of the season as a full review isn't out yet.
It says on the article reception "So far, the season has received mixed reviews from critics". 'So far' implies on-going. So far it is all mixed. As there isn't even an over-all review, should that line even be kept in? It's against what you are saying here. So should we remove that and instead only "collate" episode reviews on this page to "summarise each episode's reviews sequentially". Such as one paragraph talking about My Struggle's reviews briefly. Then another Founder's Mutation. Then Ware-Monster and then Home Again? I can see that as no over-all season review we can't give one, but there are reviews where reviewers have talked about the progress from episode to episode, and we can mention that if that reviewer is reliable. But I'd be happy for the page to simply 'collate' reviews and summarise each episodes reception? But I'd say that is only acceptable if the line "So far, the season has received mixed reviews from critics" is removed. Or it can stay, if we do mention the obvious progression noted by reviewers. 82.37.3.182 (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, lines like that can be removed. That's exactly the kind of synthesis we should be avoiding. GRAPPLE X 14:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final Ratings

[edit]

The episode "home again" has not the final ratings!!! -- 91.64.163.44 (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. 8.31 is the final number and is listed in the article and the source. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes' Summary

[edit]

May I add summaries into the episode list here? Angga1061 06:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angga1061 (talk • contribs)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The X-Files (season 10). 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:

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) 12:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_X-Files_season_10&oldid=1216341945"