Talk:Die Hand Die Verletzt

spoiler tags

Per WP:SPOILER, spoiler tags are generally not needed on plot sections. As an encyclopedia, we are expected to cover the plot thoroughly, including the ending. If a readers doesn't wish to be spoiled, they won't read the plot section. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. First of all, you can't say what is expected for an encyclopedia to cover about a TV episode, because encyclopedias generally don't feature articles like that. Furthermore I'd say the opposite, because encyclopedia articles do cover things like books, and they don't lay out the entire story for you including the ending. Third, no one who saw the episode will be looking it up -- so who would be looking it up, and why? People look up plot descriptions so they can get an idea of what the movie/episode is about prior to watching. Let's allow those people to do that without having to spoil the entire story for themselves.

WP:SPOILER - "Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional, and where the editor proposing them presents persuasive arguments for their insertion. Such reasons should demonstrate that the spoiler tag does not diminish article quality, and that knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work." Equazcion 16:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing in this article that's especially different than any other article. Spoiler tags are generally to be avoided in plot sections. The point of such a section is to give away the plot, after all, if the article is to be encyclopedic. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The point of a plot description is to give away the plot — including the ending? Care to point out where you read that? "If the article is to be encyclopedic" — but I've demonstrated how there isn't much of a precedent for encyclopedic articles about TV episodes, and whatever precedent there is would seem to say the opposite.Equazcion 16:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the point of plot sections is to summarize the entire plot in a neutral, encyclopedic way. Readers who don't want to learn the plot shouldn't read a section that clearly intendeds to tell them. See also Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't clearly intend to tell them the ending. That's just what you expect because that's your opinion about what a plot description is. The content page you linked to says nothing about spoiling fictional material. The only page that does mention that is the WP:SPOILER page, which says, "Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional". This subject is a fictional work and therefore we can use spoiler tags. I mean if not here then where? This is what spoiler tags exist for — to mark spoilers in fictional works.Equazcion 16:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The content disclaimer says, and I quote directly, "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE". WP:SPOILER makes it clear that only exceptional cases warrant spoiler tags; there is nothing exceptional here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I quoted directly too. "Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional". Which quote do you think more directly concerns this particular subject?Equazcion 17:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(←) You're cutting off your quote. It says "Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional, and where the editor proposing them presents persuasive arguments for their insertion." You have presented no argument except that the article discusses the plot, which won't cut it. You need to explain how this use is somehow different enough from every other use that it warrants a spoiler tag. This is backed up by "Spoiler warnings are usually redundant when used in "Plot", "Synopsis" or (fictional) "History" headings of any sort in articles whose subject is fictional. To insert a spoiler warning in sections of this kind requires a compelling reason." Just arguing that a plot section reveals the plot is not a compelling reason. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't merely said that the article discusses the plot. That would be fine. The article gives away the entire story, which is different. What "won't cut it" is up for interpretation. I did explain how it warrants a spoiler tag: it is the description of work of fiction iin which the entire story is given away. Any person reading it who hasn't already seen the episode will have the story ruined for them. Movie reviews also "reveal the plot" of a movie, but without also revealing significant surprises presented in the story. The plot section in this case does not only "reveal the plot". It tells the entire story from beginning to end. That's not what a plot description is. I'm fine with the article telling the entire story, but I think those who might not realize spoilers are coming could be warned. I don't see what your problem is with that. Even if people should know that spoilers are present in a plot description as you say (which I don't agree with, but for argument's sake), there are still people who might not know that -- so why not leave a warning in for those people, who might not want the whole thing spoiled for them? The tagged section concerns the ending and I don't see that it degrades the article's quality... perhaps you could enlighten me on that. And while you're at it, you could tell me where you think spoiler tags ARE warranted, if not in a place like this.Equazcion 18:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a movie review, it's an encyclopedia article. As such, it should include a summary of the entire plot, as well as well-referenced critical commentary on the episode. If people don't want to learn the plot, they shouldn't read about it in an encyclopedia, it's as simple as that. Anyone who is surprised when they learn the plot by reading the plot section in an encyclopedia has just learned an important fact about the meaning of the word "encyclopedic". That's why WP:SPOILER requires you to provide a compelling reason why the spoiler tag must stay. The fact that the whole plot is given away is not compelling - it's expected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

...in your opinion, which I disagree with. I'm not saying this is a movie review -- I'm saying it's a plot description. As I said, a plot description does not mean a telling of the entire story. Would you mind answering my question, as to where exactly a spoiler tag IS warranted? You've been avoiding that question.Equazcion 18:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

On it's own, "plot description" doesn't mean that, sure. But in combination with the fact that this is an encyclopedia, we can expect the plot description to be thorough. The question of where spoiuler tags do belong it irrelevant. The question is whether a tag belongs on this article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If plot description doesn't mean that, then it doesn't belong in the plot description. It belongs in some other section called "Complete story" or something. Plot description means the same thing in an encyclopedia as it does anywhere else. Your new definition for an encyclopedia is made-up. The question of where spoiler tags belong is relevant. They exist for a reason, and I've demonstrated that this is the reason. If they exist for some other reason then tell me what it is. I'm sorry you have such a problem with marking a spoiler section as a spoiler, but your problem with this is due to some definition of the term "plot description" that's all in your head. A plot description simply does not tell a story from beginning to end. There's no alternate definition for encyclopedias.Equazcion 20:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER does, in fact, caution against spoiler tags being used in this fashion. But it does note that spoiler tags may be added if there is a compelling reason to do so. What, in this case, is the compelling reason? Looking at the synopsis, it doesn't appear that this is an arc or mythology story, and the episode, as described here, seems to lack any particularly stunning twists. What's the compelling reason for a spoiler tag here? Phil Sandifer 21:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't warn against using spoiler tags in this fashion. It warns against using them in non-fiction situations. Articles describing fictional works are allowed to contain the tags. The episode does indeed contain twists, as all X-Files episodes do -- and as for whether or not those twists are particularly stunning, well, as much of an authority as you may consider yourself on twist stunningness, I think we can agree that it's largely a matter of opinion. Not that the stunningness of the twist has any bearing on the use of spoiler tags, since the presence of the twist itself should warrant calling its revelation a spoiler. Equazcion 21:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does: "Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional, and where the editor proposing them presents compelling reasons for their insertion. Such reasons should demonstrate that the spoiler tag does not diminish article quality, and that knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work." I am asking what the compelling reason is here. Why is there a pressing need for a spoiler tag on this article, especially since spoiler tags are generally discouraged. Put another way, right now this is one of four articles to have a spoiler warning. Given the rarity of spoiler warnings, there ought be a good reason for having one - what is it? Phil Sandifer 21:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I just stated the reason above. Perhaps you could answer that concern rather than ask the same question again.Equazcion 21:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Every nontrivial plot has a twist. It's clear from WP:SPOILER that that is not enough reason to put a spoiler tag on a section meant to describe the plot. Otherwise every plot summary would have spoiler tags. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I am uncompelled. We're dealing with a 12-year-old episode of an ended television show that does not contribute particularly to any of the most notable plotlines of that show. Its revelation is, by any standard, minor. I do not see a good case that the lack of a spoiler tag is going to diminish many readers' enjoyment of the work - I don't see this episode as particularly dependent on its twist, I think the majority of people who are going to see this episode have done so somewhere in the last twelve years, I think it's obvious that plot details will be given away in the plot section and that the people who haven't seen it should skip that section. All in all, this does not add up to a compelling reason. As such, I am removing the tag. Phil Sandifer 21:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why everyone is so up-in-arms about a little spoiler warning. But I'll concede since you feel so strongly about it. Equazcion 22:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability

The truth is that this subject matter isn't notable at all. It's just an episode of a TV show. TV episodes are only notable if a Wikiproject exists to catalog all episodes of a show, like The Simpsons has. Someone suggested creating one for The X-Files (Talk:The X-Files), so whoever wants these articles to stay should discuss that idea on that talk page. I would start the project myself but I don't know how.Equazcion 19:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Die Hand Die Verletzt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Will review this soon. Ruby 2010/2013 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Prelims

• No dab or EL issues, the single image looks fine
• There is a little recent instability; there appears to be a disagreement with an IP

Further issues

• "The episode received positive reviews, praising the writing." This sentence doesn't quite make sense
  • Done. GRAPPLE X 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Change usage from Jim to Ausbury for consistency
  • Done. GRAPPLE X 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Added directing credits, guest stars to production section (everything in lead must be in main body of article); identify who Dan Butler is (who don't indicate he is a guest star in production section)
• "...out of an idea from Glen Morgan's idea..." Idea...idea (redundant)
  • Done. GRAPPLE X 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Chris Carter -> Series creator Chris Carter
  • Done. GRAPPLE X 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Wikilink Glen Morgan and James Wong
  • Done. GRAPPLE X 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• season four -> the fourth season (also add wikilink)
  • Done. GRAPPLE X 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• "...were based on internet X-Files fans..." -> were based on fans from the Internet of The X-Files (or something similar)
  • Done. GRAPPLE X 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• The episodes title -> The episode's title
  • Done. GRAPPLE X 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• :While fake frogs were considered for the scene where they fall from the sky, the producers decided to change to real ones, dropped from a short distance, as, according to Carter, the "fake ones looked too bad and didn't hop away after command"" Should be split up into 2 sentences; or add a semicolon
  • Done. GRAPPLE X 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Dan Butler was terrified of the animal, being unable to talk while shooting the scene in the basement, and the make-up team not needing to apply fake sweat on the actor.[7]" Sentence needs to be rewritten
  • Done. GRAPPLE X 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• 10.2 million households or 10.7 million people? (compare lead and production section)
  • Done. GRAPPLE X 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Reception section: Series creator Chris Carter -> Chris Carter
  • Done. GRAPPLE X 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Use consistent accessdate formatting (compare ref 10 to 11)
  • Done. GRAPPLE X 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Use consistent date formatting (compare ref 9 to 11)
  • Done. GRAPPLE X 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Also: identify Wong and Morgan's relationship to the series (producers? just writers?) Ruby 2010/2013 04:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. GRAPPLE X 04:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

On hold for seven days while above get addressed. I'd also like to hear your thoughts on the IP issue. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 03:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Got seeing to these when I saw the review go up. As the one who dealt with the IP, I think it's a one-off blip. I dropped a talk page note to them when it looked like it might go beyond 3RR, explaining the issue, and it hasn't occurred since. If you want to leave this a couple of days, or even the full holding week to be sure of it then that'd be understandable. It's probably what I would do. GRAPPLE X 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Your changes look good. Per your recommendation, I'll keep the review on hold for a few more days to ensure there is not instability from that particular IP (or anyone else). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 04:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems fair. Best to play it safe. GRAPPLE X 04:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like the IP activity has stopped.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, stability looks good. Passing article. Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 01:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong claim about German meaning

The claim

The episode's title means "The hand, the pain" in German.

is plainly wrong. Even if a source did say that, then the source would be wrong, as anybody who speaks German can confirm. "The pain" would be "der Schmerz" in German, whereas "verletzt" is clearly a verb form, and after "die" it can only be the 3rd person singular present indicative active ("that/which injures"). Even as a participle/adjective it would need to be "die Hand, die verletzte" ("the hand, the injured (one)").

Since the claim doesn't actually add anything (other than potentially defaming the writer of the episode), I am going to remove it, even if it appears to be properly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.72.169 (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It could be further notable that by German grammar rules, the title would require a comma in front of the second die as it's a relative clause initiated by the second die. While the comma does not exist in the episode's official title and by Wikipedia rules, we're bound to spell it by its official name, it could be a noteworthy fact that the title requires a comma to be truly correct by German grammar rules. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct capitalization of episode title

The properly capitalized episode title would be "Die Hand die verletzt". In German only nouns and the first word are capitalized. I only found references where the episode title is completely uppercase or lowercase but not capitalized, so I think the capitalization of the page title should be corrected. Federhalter (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)