This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in
film,
literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
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
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|
Whovian00:19, 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|
Whovian02:22, 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
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
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.
GRAPPLEX15:52, 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.
GRAPPLEX15:53, 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 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).
GRAPPLEX16:21, 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,
TenTonParasol18:58, 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
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.
GRAPPLEX22:43, 25 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.
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
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
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
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
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.
GRAPPLEX09:14, 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
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.
GRAPPLEX19:03, 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
Here'sjustasmattering 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)
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
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
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.
GRAPPLEX08:12, 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
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"
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.
GRAPPLEX15:46, 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.
GRAPPLEX22:49, 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.
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.
GRAPPLEX16:44, 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
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.
GRAPPLEX23:01, 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...
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.
GRAPPLEX23:25, 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.
GRAPPLEX23:49, 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. --
SILENTRESIDENT01:17, 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. --
SILENTRESIDENT01:33, 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. --
SILENTRESIDENT02:36, 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.
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" --
SILENTRESIDENT01:42, 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
strong oppose there are multiple things called "season 10" for the X-Files, including plans for supersolider storylines for Reyes and Doggett; books and comics
[17][18] that came out long before this miniseries, and the X-Files 2 feature film. --
70.51.200.135 (
talk)
05:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment "The X-Files (season 10)" should be an overview of all 'season 10' efforts, including the cancelled Reyes/Doggett season, the follow-up novels, the comic book series, and the successor feature film and mini-series. OR it should redirect to the comic book series, since that is actually called The X-Files undertitle "Season 10" --
70.51.200.135 (
talk)
05:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I think this IP does have a point here. I'm happy to consider this as "season 10" for now (though I'm not convinced we won't be revisiting this once a home media release comes along), but if we take that as the title we will still need further disambiguation from what already exists. The page
The X-Files (season 10) should probably be left as a disambiguation page pointing to
The X-Files Season 10 comics (which could be left as it is, with a hatnote, or moved to
The X-Files Season 10 (comics)), here (perhaps "
The X-Files (TV series, season 10)?) and a section link to anything that addresses the unproduced season (I assume
The X-Files would be the best place for it, if it's sourced).
GRAPPLEX09:22, 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.
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?
GRAPPLEX13:29, 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? --
SILENTRESIDENT13:51, 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.
GRAPPLEX14:06, 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? --
SILENTRESIDENT14:45, 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.
GRAPPLEX14:51, 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
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)
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
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. --
SILENTRESIDENT22:15, 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. !!!!
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. --
SILENTRESIDENT21:45, 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
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! --
SILENTRESIDENT21:05, 31 January 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
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.
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
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
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:
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
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.
GRAPPLEX12:51, 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.
GRAPPLEX13:51, 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
May I add summaries into the episode list here? Angga1061 06:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Angga1061 (
talk •
contribs)
External links modified
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in
film,
literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
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
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|
Whovian00:19, 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|
Whovian02:22, 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
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
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.
GRAPPLEX15:52, 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.
GRAPPLEX15:53, 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 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).
GRAPPLEX16:21, 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,
TenTonParasol18:58, 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
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.
GRAPPLEX22:43, 25 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.
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
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
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
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
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.
GRAPPLEX09:14, 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
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.
GRAPPLEX19:03, 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
Here'sjustasmattering 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)
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
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
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.
GRAPPLEX08:12, 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
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"
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.
GRAPPLEX15:46, 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.
GRAPPLEX22:49, 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.
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.
GRAPPLEX16:44, 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
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.
GRAPPLEX23:01, 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...
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.
GRAPPLEX23:25, 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.
GRAPPLEX23:49, 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. --
SILENTRESIDENT01:17, 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. --
SILENTRESIDENT01:33, 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. --
SILENTRESIDENT02:36, 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.
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" --
SILENTRESIDENT01:42, 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
strong oppose there are multiple things called "season 10" for the X-Files, including plans for supersolider storylines for Reyes and Doggett; books and comics
[17][18] that came out long before this miniseries, and the X-Files 2 feature film. --
70.51.200.135 (
talk)
05:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment "The X-Files (season 10)" should be an overview of all 'season 10' efforts, including the cancelled Reyes/Doggett season, the follow-up novels, the comic book series, and the successor feature film and mini-series. OR it should redirect to the comic book series, since that is actually called The X-Files undertitle "Season 10" --
70.51.200.135 (
talk)
05:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I think this IP does have a point here. I'm happy to consider this as "season 10" for now (though I'm not convinced we won't be revisiting this once a home media release comes along), but if we take that as the title we will still need further disambiguation from what already exists. The page
The X-Files (season 10) should probably be left as a disambiguation page pointing to
The X-Files Season 10 comics (which could be left as it is, with a hatnote, or moved to
The X-Files Season 10 (comics)), here (perhaps "
The X-Files (TV series, season 10)?) and a section link to anything that addresses the unproduced season (I assume
The X-Files would be the best place for it, if it's sourced).
GRAPPLEX09:22, 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.
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?
GRAPPLEX13:29, 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? --
SILENTRESIDENT13:51, 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.
GRAPPLEX14:06, 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? --
SILENTRESIDENT14:45, 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.
GRAPPLEX14:51, 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
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)
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
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. --
SILENTRESIDENT22:15, 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. !!!!
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. --
SILENTRESIDENT21:45, 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
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! --
SILENTRESIDENT21:05, 31 January 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
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.
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
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
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:
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
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.
GRAPPLEX12:51, 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.
GRAPPLEX13:51, 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
May I add summaries into the episode list here? Angga1061 06:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Angga1061 (
talk •
contribs)
External links modified
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.