Talk:Hansel and Gretel

message: I moved this image here: it adds no information to Hansel and gretel. Perhaps at Eating disorder? --Wetman 02:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved image

message: The German Wikipedia has done away with the spoiler tag entirely. Gone. On the English Wikipedia, the spoiler tag remains very controversial and is not anywhere close to policy, or even official recommendation. The basic problem is this: Any article dealing with a story: (movie, book, fairytale, etc..) should have a spoiler tag, because encyclopedia articles by design and purpose spoil stories. Thus, the spoil tag is redundant and self-evident. Encyclopedia's spoil, that is what they do. If you don't want to spoil the story, don't read an encyclopedia article about the story! This argument is so persuasive and evident that the worlds second biggest Wikipedia banned use of the spoiler tag entirely. The English wikipedia has not been able to achieve consensus on this issue to date, but the spoiler tag remains very controversial. IMO I won't fight about it in certain cases, but articles that clearly are designed to spoil (the section heading is "Plot synopsis"!)  it's really taking what is already a controversial tag too far. -- Stbalbach 00:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually like it, but putting it on an article about such a short story seems kind of silly. Brutannica 22:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed again and left edit note. If someone feels strongly about adding it I'll open it up for a straw poll and RfC it. -- Stbalbach 15:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  spoiler tag 

message: I'm trying to track down a Hansel and Gretel I saw on tv in the early 90's.  The witch's house is all white and the walls are filled with colorful goo and the chairs and tables - everything is white but filled with bright colored edidble goo.  The kids have a step mother and eat nasty green blobs.  Does anyone know what this is?  128.205.136.233 20:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie/TV Version - Help! 

message: I reverted a bunch of vandalism but there is still a paragraph in the plot synopsis that looks bogus. If someone familiar with the page could check it over, that would be good. —tedp 14:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Isn't that usually called Trivia?  I mean, Buffy the Vampire Slayer bases an episode from an old Fairy Tale, isn't really notable.  Its Trivia.
Notable derivatives would be various versions found long ago, like BZ(Bruno Zollinger) mentioned.
04:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I agree that Buffy is not notable, because it is a minor derivative and not a primary adaptation. But notability has nothing to do with age, a common misconception on Wikipedia that only "old" pop culture is notable.  -- Stbalbach 13:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh.  I was thinking of the original source, and how it popped up in times of old, differant nations altering the story, and no one entirely certain which was the original form.  Seeing how folktales evolved seems differant to me than modern day writers using old stories in the place of new ideas.  But yes, the age of anything is irrelevant.  I believe shows like the Simpsons do parodies of everything new and old, that easier than coming up with new ideas. Dream Focus 03:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable derivatives? 

message: Am I the only who has ever heard of the real story it's based on? We learned at school that in I think 2005 the house of the which was discovered in germany. The real story was different Hans and Grietje were cake and pie makers but they wanted the recepee of an old woman in the woods. They sued her as which couple of times but she was cleared of all charges(documents exist) finally they formed a mob and burned the house with the woman in it. The recepee was found in her oven in 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.70.173 (talk • contribs) 
:Got a citation for this? You might be thinking of Weinstein's Hoodwinked. I wouldn't be surprised if this were part of the plot to the film's sequel, as it is supposed to involve H and G. I'll be glad to add this interpretation to the article once you can show that it is verifiable. (Oh, and new comments go at the bottom of the talk page.) --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The German Wikipedia article  lists this "real" version of the story in its parody section. There seems to be a book by illustrator and comic book writer Hans Traxler: "Die Wahrheit über Hänsel und Gretel" (1st ed. 1963). Apparently the story originates from there - a tale of a respectable baker woman Katharina Schraderin brutally murdered by a jealous ex-lover Hans and his sister Grete due to a dispute over a gingerbread recipe. It's a science satire of sorts, about a bloke who discovers this amazing truth through scientific method, and it is so well-written that it has apparently become an urban legend. I've seen the story cited as a "truth" in a gingerbread cookbook myself. Traxler seems to be a renowned caricaturist and parodist in Germany. This is what I got out of the article with my very limited understanding of German... I don't think this variation should be mentioned at all in the main article, unless in a separate Parody section?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.29.196.160 (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, most Wikipedia articles on works of fiction have a plot summary.  Good point.  Please be sure to check out WP:FICT, associated guidelines and especially the guidance at WP:PLOTSUM, and help us write one!  Thanks.  —Aladdin Sane (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a brief plot summary from the version of the story here:  it seems like older versions of this page did have a plot summary but I don't know what's happened to them Ossie 10:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The real story? 

message: According to the MOS the adaptations section in an article about fiction is restricted to dramatic adaptations such as movies, ballets, operas, musicals, cartoons, plays, etc. Books, games, toys, dolls, and other formats are not entered in this section and WP discourages trivia and "In popular culture" sections so don't enter all this stuff. Additionally, anything in the adaptations section MUST be cited to a reliable source. This eliminates imdb and similar sites because they are user-created (like WP) and therefore considered unreliable. SurLaLune and similar sites are not reliable sources either because they are " self-created" (Heidi Anne Heiner) and have no editorial oversight or review. Heiner simply enters what she prefers and there's no one reviewing it. Don't cite anything to SurLaLune. It's not necessary to list every single adaptation of Hansel and Gretel. Most are forgettable tv productions or films. WP is not a repository of this stuff. The only adaptation here of any significance is the opera and this can be sited to many reliable sources. Let's clean the adaptations section out and get rid of this stuff. This stuff is unsourced and that's one reason to get rid of it. Most of it can never be cited to reliable sources. Let's get rid of it and give the article a professional appearance. Let's stop collecting this trivia stuff. LMD908jo (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, this sort of stuff should be preserved in another outlet when it's removed from Wikipedia. Any ideas? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adaptations 

message: " Their hostess is a "wicked witch" who is crimes professor tohoku university form tokyo university uchida yoshichika emeritus yoshikazu - matsushita kiyoo with tohoku university fujita kinnichiro in architectures doing crimes killing houses truth human being rights who waylays children to cook and eat them. "wicked witch" has number +81 246=1000-754 3776-4= (0)43, +81 247-8101F (0)43,　+81 247-8168 (0)43, 080-1810-7052 +81 . in japan not she , it is he ."
- As much as I've tried I cannot make out what the original text was supposed to contain here. I thought about calling one of these numbers, but not sure if the person on line could help me out with it.
Copy and paste can be hell.
Anyone in for re-writing the messed up text part, otherwise I'll try to figure out a replacement text over the next few days.
(Shibirian (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messed up text with japanese text parts 

message: I don't understand this sentence: "The following summary is based on an 1853 anonymous translation by Iona and Peter Opie in 1972."
Is the translation anonymous from 1853 or by the Opies in 1972?
Or is it the summary of the anonymous translation that's by the Opie's in 1972?
If that's the case, then it ought to be rewritten rather than directly copied into a wikipedia article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.189.179 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  the following summary 

message: The edits made by user with IP ending in 143, and those built upon it, contained large pieces of missing text as well as poor grammar and missing punctuation. Dominicanpapi82 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted back to September 1st 2014 revision 

message: It's the first time I've seen this, and the See also section in particular looks odd to me. I clicked on one of those links, and the linked article didn't have the quotes at all. If there should be some formatting change for the titles, would italics be better? Sorry all I can do is bring this up for others to figure out. Thanks! --Geekdiva (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep or remove the quotes around fairy tale titles, or exchange them for italics?  

message: Why does the infobox have the details of one single modern edition of this story, publication date as 1996 and the ISBN for a very modern book again published in 1996, unknown redlinked author and Puffin Books as the publisher? This article is meant to be about the classic story/fairy tale, in many forms including the 200 year old Brothers Grim version. The article is not about one modern edition/publication of said story, so that shouldn't be in the infobox. By all means a notable modern edition can be mentioned in the article somewhere but not the main infobox. Plus what is so important about the 1996 Puffin version above all others, I would imagine the story has been published many many times, it was popular when I was a child before 1996.  Carlwev  10:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly!--ChemWarfare (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is infobox for a 1996 Puffin Book?

message: in the story presented here: https://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Legends/TheDesertedChildren-GrosVentre.html and here: http://www.indianmythology.org/assiniboin/deseerted_children.htm there are several notable similarities such as the brother and sister pair, the cannibalistic witch/old woman, and the survival of the children through cleverness. On the other hand, there are also some pretty big differences such as the focus on vengeance against the family that abandoned them and the sudden, unexplained magic powers of the younger brother. Is this notable enough to include in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.95.38 (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarity to Native American Legend about deserted children 

message: I have a question about this sentence: "According to folklorist Jack Zipes, the tale celebrates the symbolic order of the patriarchal home, seen as a haven protected from the dangerous characters that threaten the lives of children outside, while it systematically denigrates the adult female characters, which are seemingly intertwined between each other."
What is being intertwined? I can't tell if this sentence is trying to say that the adult female characters are intertwined (in which case, I would substitute "who" for the "which" there), or whether the intertwining is supposed to be between two themes: The order of the patriarchal home and the systematic denigration of the adult female characters. Novellasyes (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar here?