Talk:Without (The X-Files)

Without (The X-Files) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Without (The X-Files) is part of the The X-Files Mythology, Volume 3 series, a good topic. It is also part of the The X-Files (season 8) series, a good topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 8, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
January 10, 2010	Good article reassessment	Delisted
February 2, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
July 26, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted
July 26, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: Episode coverage / The X-Files

	Television portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article is supported by the X-Files task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Science Fiction Mid‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Without (The X-Files)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I will review this article. --Edge3 (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. --TIAYN (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I don't know who Skinner is. Could you please add that info or a link to the appropriate article?--Edge3 (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done I think the plot summary is getting too detailed sometimes. It needs to be shortened. --Edge3 (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry for delaying this review. I've been very busy in real life and cannot handle the responsibility of reviewing this article. I'm turning it over to another editor. --Edge3 (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. --TIAYN (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is there no reception information available? The leftorium 17:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not as i know off, i've checked. But trying to find reception information is hard for an episode from 2001, an its hard enough to find reception information to the season article. But maybe you'll have better luck than me? --TIAYN (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the article needed a second opinion, so I'll try and give mine. I don't see much wrong, but here's some things I've caught:

Done You've already linked to Mulder in the summary, so no need to do so in Production.

Done Do you have a source for the Prod. code?

I used the bookled, is that okay?

Done Yeah, but it needs to be formatted with Template:cite book. The Flash ^{talk} 20:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done You've already linked to Alien Bounty Hunter in the summary, so it doesn't need to be linked in Production.

The Flash ^{talk} 17:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Everything's looking good - one thing I still see is the "see also," which needs to be used in the template. I believe it's Template:See also, but if not the correct one should be linked on that template. The Flash ^{talk} 00:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few more things found:

By "Bookled," do you mean the booklet for the season DVD? If so, a few more fields need to be put in - "page" and "ISBN" (for the DVD, info should be available on Amazon.com)

I've added the page number. I can't find it on Amazon, and its does not have an author or an "ISBN" i can find. Its simply a book included in the DVD set. --TIAYN (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done"The episode did not make it to the list of the ten most watched television shows that week on Sky1." -> "[...]that week on the channel."

Then I'll be satisfied. The Flash ^{talk} 21:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm sold. Now, as the first nominator has indicated he is extremely busy, I am unsure whether I should inform him or just pass it now. Thoughts? The Flash ^{talk} 23:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been checking this page a few times, actually. Feel free to pass if you think it's ready. --Edge3 (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is it a pass? --TIAYN (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes :) The Flash ^{talk} 00:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :D --TIAYN (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Without (The X-Files)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist. Unreliably sourced. Geometry guy 23:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this article passed GA the first time around. Since I've recently had a somewhat contentious GA review with another X-files episode article (which was also written by the creator of this article), I think it would be best to leave this as a community review. Below are my problems with this article:

Article is poorly sourced. Sheer quantity of sources is quite low for a GA, and the quality of the sources is also not good. The 5 references for this article are:
- A booklet about the season by Fox Home Entertainment (WP:SELFPUB).
- The DVD of the episode itself (WP:SELFPUB).
- Nielsen ratings from an X-files fan site (xfiles.host.sk).
- A listing of international air dates for the episode, also from a fan site (geos.tv).
- Ratings information from what appears to be a British satellite TV provider. Note that the reference link doesn't point to the information (because the web site doesn't allow such a link), but instead includes instructions for how to navigate through their site to the relevant information.
Typical TV episode GA articles are much more comprehensive than this article. The reception section is only a few sentences long. There is no cast section, or even a link to an X-files cast article. The plot and production sections are short and not comprehensive, and both sections are only referenced from a self-published source. The introduction is completely unreferenced. SnottyWong talk 15:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I, too, am concerned that so much of the article sources from a DVD compilation and self-published collateral. Majoreditor (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, mainly since none of these concerns were worked on in the past month. Wizardman _{Help review good articles} 17:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know this is a million years old and its already been bumped back up to GA, but a booklet released along with a DVD, as well as a bonus feature doesn't qualify as SELFPUB, because it has been released by a legitimate source.--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Without (The X-Files)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 02:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this one soon. Ruby 2010/2013 02:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

Prelim comments

Should add {{subscription needed}} tag for this ref
I'm not way happy with the refs for this article; what makes Space.com a reliable source? This?
You and Grapple usually are very adept at finding written sources for X-Files articles. Any books out there on this one? Ruby 2010/2013 05:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just chiming in about the print sources here—short of dropping £125 on the Hurwitz and Knowles all-series guide, the books stopped at season 7 (this being a season 8 episode). Didn't actually realise that until your comment had me check it out, but it's not a good sign. :( GRAPPLE X 05:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, same here. I don't have access to that guide either and it's out of my price range. Other than that, however, I managed to fixed all the prelim issues. I'd like to comment that Space.com is a reliable source. It's articles are often reprinted in other magazine and they have a panel of editors. See their About Us and their Official Sources/Contributors. I removed GEOS, however, as it is a fansite. Sorry about that. I believe all the other sources stand up to scrutiny reasonably well.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

You should say which episode and which season in the lead (consistency with other television articles)
Indicate which day it aired in the UK in the lead
Lead: indicate "the previous episode" = "Within" (not clear in its current state; this might be better clarified once you put episode X and season X)
agent Mulder -> Agent Mulder
"...learn that John Doggett, the leader of the team" -> Doggett
"...received little attention in the United Kingdom and Ireland." Might need to alter this a bit; maybe, "it failed to rank in the top ten for that week" or something similar
Plot, plot overview, plot summary (I've seen different headings for different X-Files episodes; might want to make all of these consistent)
Plot: add actor for Gibson Praise
I can't really follow the plot summary, as the events are closely related with the previous episode (which I haven't seen). You might want to add a little more info for reader clarity (there's no danger of going over the plot word count, for now)
Should add more production info to lead
"Supervising Producer Paul Rabwin recounts" -> supervising producer Paul Rabwin recounts
Use consistent date formatting (4 December 2011 vs December 4, 2011)
You repeat ratings info (9% of estimated households vs 9.072 million households)
"On November 12, 2000 the episode premiered on American and Canadian television on Fox and Global Television Network in Canada, with both stations airing the episode at the same time." Sentence has some redundancy and could do with being rewritten (also no need to repeat Canada twice)
No need for wikilink of UK and Ireland (both common words)
Any other ratings data out there on UK ratings?
"He called the episode "fun [and] much better than last year's trilogy, considering." Considering what? Is there more to the quote?
Italicize and wikilink Contra Costa Times
"towards the shows strengths" -> show's
I'm not sure how justified the screenshot is, considering there's no critical commentary on it and there's already a great concept image

I'll place the article on hold for seven days while the above get addressed. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 07:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I believe I've fixed up everything and made corrections, per your review. Tell me if there is anything else I need to do!--Gen. Quon (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes look good. One more thing: Is the episode called "Without" or "Without (Part 3)"? Ruby 2010/2013 19:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, it's part three of three parts. I clarified it.--Gen. Quon (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for GA. Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 01:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Without (The X-Files). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/tv/xfiles_802_001113.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 October 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 18:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without (The X-Files) → Without
Without → Without (disambiguation)

– There is no other article with this title. Tree Critter (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tree Critter, DrVogel, and 162 etc.: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but I don't feel comfortable doing this one, because it's such a common word. Perhaps somebody with more experience than me can help. Dr. Vogel (talk) 10:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DAB:When a disambiguation page lists only one existing article by that name (...) The existing article is not automatically the primary topic nor is there automatically no primary topic. (...) If there is no primary topic, then the disambiguation page should be the primary landing page. I don't see any reason to consider the X-Files episode a primary topic here, so the status quo is correct. 162 etc. (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks a lot for your input. Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with the above. Since it's such a common word, it seems odd to have TXF page be the default landing article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming we are not deleting the disambiguation page, I have edited the RM to request the associated move explicitly. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "There is no other article with this title" is not a sufficient reason to not disambiguate: WP:D2D: Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase [...], there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead, bold mine. A few songs titled "Without" already lead (redirect) to appropriate albums, and the XF episode does not sufficiently stand out as a primary topic. No such user (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oppose per 162—blindlynx (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as this is not the primary topic. I am in agreement with the above oppose arguments. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Without" is far too generic a word to be used for a specific X-Files episode. JIP | Talk 03:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Far, far too generic to refer primarily to a TV episode. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.