Talk:The Sixth Extinction (The X-Files)

The Sixth Extinction (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.

The Sixth Extinction (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 7) 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
February 29, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
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.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Sixth Extinction (The X-Files)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 14:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For an unknown reason, Wizardman deleted this page. Maybe it was just impatience...

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):
Good prose; no complaints
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References reliable; formating is consistent and follows the guidelines
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):
Infobox screenshot image is non-free but it follows the non-free file criteria, and its FUR is complete and does not violate the mentioned criteria. Second file is in public domain. Captions are good
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I see no issues with this article. I did not like how it was removed without discussion (maybe the nominator proposed it, I don't know). I was busy in the last days, so forgive my delay. Good work as usual! :)--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 14:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to mention this about three months late, but I just want you to know that it wasn't me. :P --Gen. Quon (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes nominations that have been inactive are deleted so that the article appears in the queue as unreviewed again, checking the page logs might show who deleted it. 22:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Corrected formatting/usage for http://space.com/sciencefiction/tv/xfiles_701_991108.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: 18 January 2022).

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} 15:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 September 2016[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Moved and The Sixth Extinction becomes WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History. Incoming links will need sorting first though. — Amakuru (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Sixth Extinction → The Sixth Extinction (The X-Files) – "The Sixth Extinction" should redirect to Sixth extinction (disambiguation). The article The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History has five times more daily visitors than The Sixth Extinction (The X-Files). 128.178.189.47 (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd be more open to the move if The Sixth Extinction then pointed to the book, which was then hatnoted. If it's substantially more viewed then it surely qualifies as the primary subject, rather than routing a specific name (with "the" and title casing) to a generic disambig. GRAPPLE ^X 14:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, per Grapple X, the book seems the primary. Randy Kryn 17:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support In ictu oculi (talk) 07:37, 14 September 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.