# Talk:En Ami

This review is transcluded from Talk:En Ami/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: DAP388 (talk · contribs) 23:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Will review this soon. —DAP388 (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Plot
"Jason McPeck, a young cancer sufferer"; Sufferer doesn't sound right in this context. Patient would be a better replacement.
"The Smoking Man, who is starting to succumb to lung cancer"; Again, succumb is used in the wrong context. Try this, "The Smoking Man, who has a progressive case of lung cancer"
"and that he wants to make right his wrongs by giving the cure to Scully." I'm not sure what is meant by this. Are you trying to say he is setting things right?
"She agrees to go on a trip to retrieve the cure, but wears a wire." If possible, please explain why she is wearing a wire.
Be consistent with capitalization in regards to Smoking Man and Lone Gunman. In some cases, the "t" in the is capitalized, while other instances it is lower-case.
"They also find that Scully's computer was hacked into and someone has been posing as Scully, sending Cobra messages calling for a meeting." -> "Furthermore, they find that an anonymous being has hack Scully's computer and stolen his identity, sending Cobra messages calling for a meeting."
Production
"The script went through many revisions. Several scenes were cut, including one that featured The Smoking Man teaching Scully how to water-ski." A semicolon should be placed after revisions, as the other sentences are related to the aforementioned one.
Reception
"The episode received mixed-to-positive reviews from critics." -> "The episode received varying responses from critics."
That's all. On hold for seven days. —DAP388 (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed all the issues. Thank you for reviewing this!--Gen. Quon (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. Happy to pass this one. :) —DAP388 (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on En Ami. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://space.com/sciencefiction/tv/xfiles_715_000320.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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A future episode of the X-files reveals key information that will change a viewer's interpretation of this episode. So my question is whether we should reveal that spoiler on this page. I understand Wikipedia doesn't shy away from spoiling plot details, but my understanding is that this typically applies only to the subject at hand. So, for example, in looking at the Wikipedia page for Paper Hearts (an X-files episode that deals with the mystery of Samantha Mulder) we would expext to see the details of that episode layed out, even if they spoil the episode. However, we wouldn't expect to find a discussion of Closure (a later X-files episode that ultimately reveals what happens to Samantha).  I think the same logic applies here. It might be appropriate to link to the later episode and state that it connects to En Ami, but I don't see the sense in giving away the ultimate reveal. But, I'm open to other thoughts. Ultimahero (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It is a good idea to avoid an edit war, so I commend you for going here, and I do apologize if I came across as curt. As for the question at hand, I get what you're saying, but the fact of the matter is that it has been long-standing Wiki policy to not avoid spoilers (e.g. "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality"); if a read wants to avoid getting spoiled, then they should probably avoid the page in question. This has been the case for every other X-Files page out there. @Grapple X: any additional insight?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the response. Again, I understand that Wikipedia doesn't shy away from spoilers, but isn't that policy limited to the item in question? My problem isn't that there are spoilers for the episode En Ami, it's that there are spoilers for a future episode. I don't see the benefit in that, especially when we could instead inform readers about the connection by linking to the future episode without giving away the plot reveal. I don't know if you are an X-files fan or not, so I'm not sure how much sense my original analogy made, but I see them as the same thing. Would you support me explaining the plot of Closure (a 7th season episode) on the page for Paper Hearts (a 4th season episode)? Ultimahero (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah! I see what you're saying now (sorry... thick-skulled-one over here). Now that I think about it, having the paragraph in the reception section doesn't make a ton of sense. It'd be much better in a "Continuity" section or something like that. I'm still not sold on the idea of preventing any sort of spoilers (again, that isn't the point of Wiki), but I do see your point clearer now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I do think a different section would help, since it's sort of jarring the way it is now. Still, I asked the same example twice now and haven't gotten a direct answer. Would you be willing to weigh in on my Paper Hearts/Closure analogy? Do you support it? If not, why not? I think the answer would be instructive. As far as this page goes, my suggrstion would be something like this - "The Cigarette Smoking Man's true intentions were revealed in the the 11th season episode My Struggle III," along with a link to that episode. A statement like this fills in this episode's continuity with sufficent information, yey without spoiling the reveal of 'My Struggle III'. I think a person who gets on this page should expect to see spoilers for this episode, but they would also be reasonable to not expect spoilers for other episodes at a different point in the seties.Ultimahero (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to that hypothetical intra-article addition (Doctor Who articles do it all the time), since the point of Wikipedia is not to prevent spoilers from being read. With that said, I think any future spoilers should be in clearer spots (again, like a "Continuity" section). The fact of the matter is that the reveal in "My Struggle III" was directly tied to this episode, and it would be inappropriate to omit that info, and I'm uncomfortable beating around the bush with a somewhat neutered sentence pointing to a different article. Perhaps, if the idea of a continuity section is not a winner, a compromise could be note a la "The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati"[1]? I'd like to hear what Grapple has to say about this, though, before doing anything too bold.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I guess my thinking is that Wikipedia isn't necessarily about connecting all the plot lines of a given series, either. A reader comes to this particular page to learn about this episode, including it's production and reception, but not necessarily to learn about all the revelations that might spring from it later in the show's continuity. So, to give a different example, Avengers: Infinty War came out recently, and if I want to aboid spoilers I understand I shouldn't go to the page for that movie. However, I don't think I should have to worry about seeing Infinity War spoilers on the page for an earlier Marvel movie just because they share an overarching plot. That being said, I would be comfortable with a "notes" section like the one you linked to from Amor Fati. That feels a little more stuctured to me, and a reader is less likely to merely stumble across it while reading about this episode's reception. (Since they probably weren't anticipating plot details to arise while reading about "broadcast and reception".)Ultimahero (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so this discussion has been up for a week, and I think there's a consensus for a notes section, so I'd say it's time to make it happenUltimahero (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and turned it into a note, which I added here. Feel free to move it to a different place; this location just seemed like a good place, given the 'creepy' nature of the reveal and the fact that they're discussing the CSM's motivations.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, great! Thanks for doing that! :) Looks really good. Ultimahero (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)