As you can see on the original broadcaster page, the episodes are presented as started from S1 Ep 1 to S1 Ep5. Consequently, this should be considered as a new series.

This was exactly the same for Icons Unearthed: The Simpsons were the episodes were numbered from S1 Ep 1 to S1 Ep6, indicating that this was also a separate series.

I would argue this is either revisionism on the part of VICE, or more likely just their own syntax for describing the seasons as being the first on that subject, thus allowing for follow-ups which wouldn't carry non-consecutive season numbers. Isn't that how Pokémon are listed in Japanese primary sources, they give all the subseries their own title and call it a separate series, and then we call it a continuation season of the parent-entity of Pokémon. Allowances for the differences between episodic and documentary television and the latter's ability to jump around between subjects, VICE have announced the next season will be on Marvel, and I could certainly see them expecting that to take more than one 6-ep season. Additional Star Wars streaming series and any future movies could easily prompt a second season about that franchise way down the road as well.

Your links also reinforce my point about it being an anthology series though. The series description on both pages reads, "Cast, crew, and experts will reveal never-before-heard stories about the most iconic film and television series." Countering that, I would point you to the Shows page, and the varied descriptions for each of the Dark Side of series. VICE stated that line with Dark Side of the Ring, and then spun off the other separate series, so they each get their own description. Then scroll down to the Icons Unearthed entries, and note the identical descriptions.

And you can give it what weight you feel appropriate, but IMDB also lists it as an anthology series.

@NYSNDGUY said:

I would argue this is either revisionism on the part of VICE, or more likely just their own syntax for describing the seasons as being the first on that subject, thus allowing for follow-ups which wouldn't carry non-consecutive season numbers.

The rule here is to list series as they are listed by the broadcaster. So, we should list them as separate series.

Isn't that how Pokémon are listed in Japanese primary sources, they give all the subseries their own title and call it a separate series, and then we call it a continuation season of the parent-entity of Pokémon.

Pokemon is on our list of series where the seasons need to be reorganized. This will be done by the administrator at a date not yet defined.

And you can give it what weight you feel appropriate, but IMDB also lists it as an anthology series.

IMDB isn't an official source.

@superboy97 said: ouldn't carry non-consecutive season numbers.

The rule here is to list series as they are listed by the broadcaster. So, we should list them as separate series.

Well, you're rule is overly broad and should be revisited. Particularly as it applies here.