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
"The story for the episode was developed by former series star David Duchovny, series creator Chris Carter, and executive producer Frank Spotnitz; the teleplay was written by Carter. The episode was directed by Duchovny." A little messy. How about: The teleplay of the episode was written by Chris Carter, from a story by former series star David Duchovny, series creator Carter, and executive producer Frank Spotnitz
I know this might change everything else, but how about "The season centers on FBI special agents John Doggett (Robert Patrick), Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson)", rather than series. Because I see other articles that say it centers on Mulder and Scully
"Chris Owens was asked to return to the series for the episode. Owens' character had previously been killed off in the sixth season episode "One Son". How about: "Chris Owens was asked to return to the series for the episode, whose character had previously been killed off in the sixth season episode "One Son"
"After being knocked down, pursues his assailant. Doggett draws his gun and commands him to stop. The man turns and slowly steps back towards Doggett with his hands up. Doggett’s expression suggests horror at the man’s face." Could some sentences be merge
Per
MOS:PUNCT, "Consistent use of the straight (or typewriter) apostrophe ( ' ) is recommended, as opposed to the curly (or typographic) apostrophe ( ’ )." That being said, I see that Doggett’s and man’s use that when they should use '
After these are fixed, I'd still recommend a copy-edit for the article, particularly in the "Plot" and "Reception" sections. Other than that, great work! TBrandley05:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)reply
OK, I went through and cleaned up the prose. Honestly, I don't see very many grammar errors though, so I don't think a full ce is necessary, but I could probably get Grapple to look it over if he has time. In the meantime,
I've combed through it.--Gen. Quon(Talk)17:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)reply
I have no desire to start a hatnote edit war on this page. If you disagree with my changes, please feel free to further edit/revert them, but please let's discuss them here as well from now on, to try and reach
consensus. My rational for the changes is as follows:
In my view, mentioning that Baby William is a character in The X-Files is important as this establishes the context for why the footnote is relevant both to the article and potentially to the reader. This is why I added it.
My original edit ("For the X-Files character...") did not capitalise "The" because this made a straightforward and simple, grammatically coherent hatnote. I did not think it critical to retain the "The" in italics and capitalised, as although normally a show's official name either does or does not include a capitalised article, typically in usage there is no hard-and-fast rule. In that sentence construct, the "the" with lowercase is required for grammar; it does not form part of the title of the show and thus should not be capitalised. If a capitalised "The" is required, the correct form would be "For the The X-Files character..."; the non-capitalised "the" belongs with the word "character", not with "X-files", which is adjectival in this context. I have changes the sentence grammar to allow a capitalised "The" without undue awkwardness. I hope this is acceptable. (This does not prove that it is correct, but my first chosen form exists independently elsewhere on Wikipedia, e.g. the hatnote at
Help! (album); I contend that in this context, it is acceptable and even correct not to capitalise the "the".)
"The X-Files" is the name of a series and thus should be italicised per
MOS:ITALICS. In an italicised context, words or phrases that are normally italicised are transposed again into the regular font. This is what should be done here, and I have reinstated it.
I do not claim to be infallible in these regards, and as said above, am ready to have a debate to attempt to reach consensus. Please participate if you disagree at all. Thank you
Thanks for your comments. I took a quick look and the other three Williams – besides going by the name Bill or Billy – appear to have well-established surnames, which I think means that
MOS:DABSUR applies and they do not need disambiguating? --
MegaSloth (
talk)
19:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Well we're going off the original topic, but as that appears to be settled I'm happy to run with it. I'm afraid I would disagree. I would say that disambiguating Max Fenig from Max, even in the context of The X-Files, was technically incorrect unless there is some compelling
WP:IAR-type reason to vary from the guidelines. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the X-files to comment on the Max/Max Fenig case so I won't pursue that, but it is clear to me that the other Williams, if they were to be referred to by a single name, would in any case be "Bill" or "Billy". This is in addition to
MOS:DABSUR which clearly states "Persons who have the ambiguous term as surname or given name should not be in the same section of the disambiguation page as the other links unless they are very frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g., Elvis, Shakespeare)" (this is talking about DAB pages but there is no reason to use different criteria for DAB hatnotes). Disambiguating the Bill(y)s from other uses of "William" alone would be both against the disambiguation guidelines and counterproductive. --
MegaSloth (
talk)
19:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Fair enough for this one; though the Max/Max Fenig case makes sense as Max Fenig is a character not only from the series but from that episode itself, I can easily see a reader searching "Max (The X-Files)" and reasonably expecting to see the character (like, for example, searching for "Hamlet" and wanting to see
Prince Hamlet rather than The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark).
GRAPPLEX19:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm glad we can agree on the hatnote for this page. While I'm not completely convinced regarding Max Fenig, your arguments make some sense. I'm not sure your example of Hamlet is a good one; Prince is a title not a first name and to my knowledge Hamlet is given no other name, so there is no choice but to disambiguate him from other "Hamlet"s. Nonetheless, I am content that the hatnote at
Max (The X-Files) is at worst harmless and is possibly useful so there's no point spending our energies debating further. Many thanks for spending the time to sort this one out. --
MegaSloth (
talk)
17:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
William (The X-Files). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
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 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
"The story for the episode was developed by former series star David Duchovny, series creator Chris Carter, and executive producer Frank Spotnitz; the teleplay was written by Carter. The episode was directed by Duchovny." A little messy. How about: The teleplay of the episode was written by Chris Carter, from a story by former series star David Duchovny, series creator Carter, and executive producer Frank Spotnitz
I know this might change everything else, but how about "The season centers on FBI special agents John Doggett (Robert Patrick), Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson)", rather than series. Because I see other articles that say it centers on Mulder and Scully
"Chris Owens was asked to return to the series for the episode. Owens' character had previously been killed off in the sixth season episode "One Son". How about: "Chris Owens was asked to return to the series for the episode, whose character had previously been killed off in the sixth season episode "One Son"
"After being knocked down, pursues his assailant. Doggett draws his gun and commands him to stop. The man turns and slowly steps back towards Doggett with his hands up. Doggett’s expression suggests horror at the man’s face." Could some sentences be merge
Per
MOS:PUNCT, "Consistent use of the straight (or typewriter) apostrophe ( ' ) is recommended, as opposed to the curly (or typographic) apostrophe ( ’ )." That being said, I see that Doggett’s and man’s use that when they should use '
After these are fixed, I'd still recommend a copy-edit for the article, particularly in the "Plot" and "Reception" sections. Other than that, great work! TBrandley05:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)reply
OK, I went through and cleaned up the prose. Honestly, I don't see very many grammar errors though, so I don't think a full ce is necessary, but I could probably get Grapple to look it over if he has time. In the meantime,
I've combed through it.--Gen. Quon(Talk)17:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)reply
I have no desire to start a hatnote edit war on this page. If you disagree with my changes, please feel free to further edit/revert them, but please let's discuss them here as well from now on, to try and reach
consensus. My rational for the changes is as follows:
In my view, mentioning that Baby William is a character in The X-Files is important as this establishes the context for why the footnote is relevant both to the article and potentially to the reader. This is why I added it.
My original edit ("For the X-Files character...") did not capitalise "The" because this made a straightforward and simple, grammatically coherent hatnote. I did not think it critical to retain the "The" in italics and capitalised, as although normally a show's official name either does or does not include a capitalised article, typically in usage there is no hard-and-fast rule. In that sentence construct, the "the" with lowercase is required for grammar; it does not form part of the title of the show and thus should not be capitalised. If a capitalised "The" is required, the correct form would be "For the The X-Files character..."; the non-capitalised "the" belongs with the word "character", not with "X-files", which is adjectival in this context. I have changes the sentence grammar to allow a capitalised "The" without undue awkwardness. I hope this is acceptable. (This does not prove that it is correct, but my first chosen form exists independently elsewhere on Wikipedia, e.g. the hatnote at
Help! (album); I contend that in this context, it is acceptable and even correct not to capitalise the "the".)
"The X-Files" is the name of a series and thus should be italicised per
MOS:ITALICS. In an italicised context, words or phrases that are normally italicised are transposed again into the regular font. This is what should be done here, and I have reinstated it.
I do not claim to be infallible in these regards, and as said above, am ready to have a debate to attempt to reach consensus. Please participate if you disagree at all. Thank you
Thanks for your comments. I took a quick look and the other three Williams – besides going by the name Bill or Billy – appear to have well-established surnames, which I think means that
MOS:DABSUR applies and they do not need disambiguating? --
MegaSloth (
talk)
19:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Well we're going off the original topic, but as that appears to be settled I'm happy to run with it. I'm afraid I would disagree. I would say that disambiguating Max Fenig from Max, even in the context of The X-Files, was technically incorrect unless there is some compelling
WP:IAR-type reason to vary from the guidelines. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the X-files to comment on the Max/Max Fenig case so I won't pursue that, but it is clear to me that the other Williams, if they were to be referred to by a single name, would in any case be "Bill" or "Billy". This is in addition to
MOS:DABSUR which clearly states "Persons who have the ambiguous term as surname or given name should not be in the same section of the disambiguation page as the other links unless they are very frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g., Elvis, Shakespeare)" (this is talking about DAB pages but there is no reason to use different criteria for DAB hatnotes). Disambiguating the Bill(y)s from other uses of "William" alone would be both against the disambiguation guidelines and counterproductive. --
MegaSloth (
talk)
19:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Fair enough for this one; though the Max/Max Fenig case makes sense as Max Fenig is a character not only from the series but from that episode itself, I can easily see a reader searching "Max (The X-Files)" and reasonably expecting to see the character (like, for example, searching for "Hamlet" and wanting to see
Prince Hamlet rather than The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark).
GRAPPLEX19:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm glad we can agree on the hatnote for this page. While I'm not completely convinced regarding Max Fenig, your arguments make some sense. I'm not sure your example of Hamlet is a good one; Prince is a title not a first name and to my knowledge Hamlet is given no other name, so there is no choice but to disambiguate him from other "Hamlet"s. Nonetheless, I am content that the hatnote at
Max (The X-Files) is at worst harmless and is possibly useful so there's no point spending our energies debating further. Many thanks for spending the time to sort this one out. --
MegaSloth (
talk)
17:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
William (The X-Files). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
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.