Talk:Lord Voldemort/Archive 3

message: In Chamber of Secrets, in the flashback of Riddel, his wand is black, or dark brown, however, in present day, its white and appears boney white. Since we know that Riddel acquired his wand from the same shop as Harry, and the same phoenix gave the feather, could this be a bit of incosistancy between Chamber of Secrets and Goblet of Fire and beyond? Can wands change color? He had a black wand (phoenix feather) and somehow the story changes its appearance, and maintains the concept that it is the sister wand of Harry's. (Phoenix Feather).Baaleos 14:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voldemort Wand

message: It's spelled Voldemort, not Voldermort.  "I am Lord Voldemort" is a scramble of "Tom Marvolo Riddle".  The image name is also spelled wrong, but I don't have time to fix it atm. -- Bilbo1507 23:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: "Flight (or wings) of death"? Might what to reference what language that is. "De mort" is "of death" in French, but "vol" is "theft", isn't it? 69.152.225.217 14:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly believe that it can be interpreted as "flight(or flies) from death", thus Lord Flies(runs) from Death. It seems both viable linguistically and appropriate. Rotten Venetic 21:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Voldemort" means what? 

message: The references should be updated to reflect information that has become available: It probably is now known for sure if Ralph Fiennes reprises his role as Lord Voldemort, right? Valters 21:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 07:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to Order of Phoenix film 

message: someone suggested moving this page to Voldemort, rather than Lord Voldemort. To prevent future difficulties, I moved it back. Also because it is arguable his name is 'Lord', not simply his title. Or, indeed, his name arguably should be 'I am Lord Voldemort'. However, does anyone have any views on this? Sandpiper 15:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he would describe himself as 'Lord Voldemort' rather than 'Voldemort'. Certainly, he always seems to refer to himself as the former. I think the 'I am' bit has, significantly, been cast aside. Michaelsanders 15:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Name 

message: It says in the article that, to paraphrase, "Voldemort placed a jynx on the Defence Against the Dark Arts office so that no teacher could work for more than a consecutive year."  However, Quirrel was there for more than a year, as his tenure predated Harry's entrance into Hogwarts. --AstoVidatu 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know if his years teaching were consecutive.  John Reaves 01:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary: we KNOW that he taught at the school for more than one year, and we KNOW that it is impossible for a teacher to not be out by the end of the year. Therefore, the only way these canon statements are both true is if he taught a year, went off for a year, came back for a year. Michaelsanders 09:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Small nitpick: Voldemortplaced a jynx? Surely you mean jinx? Rotten Venetic 21:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, Rowling said in an interview that he taught multiple years at Hogwarts, but only taught Dark Arts for one year. Ophois 05:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: I noticed that "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" will rederict, but "You-Know-Who" doesn't (there isn't an article titled that either). Since a lot of characters call him that, wouldn't it make sense to do this? Momoroxmysoxoff 22:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and do it, be bold and all that jazz. John Reaves (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for a rederict 

message: Hi, after this article got demoted from GA after taking much flak in the last GA review, I skimmed over the talk page and found certain remarks about the strong in-universe view of the article. I was bold and rewrote a good part of the article, intending to put Voldy back into GA range (WP:WIAGA, WP:WAF). Please assume good faith.
*I tried to make the article look like Batman, a FA about another fictional character: split fictional character bio into publication history (real dates), and a concise fictional bio (in-universe, but based on pub history) as of WP:WAF. I tried to be easy on the original fictional bio, trying to save good chunks, but I am wary of fictional dates. Fiction is not fact.
*I tried to emulate also the look-and-feel of the Horcrux article, a HP article definitely in range of a GA
*sourced the fictional data; note I used chapter references instead of page refs, because the English and American versions have different page counts
*corrected lead as of WP:LEAD and WP:WAF
*fictional data now is written in present, as required, and only historical real-life data is written in the past tense
*add sourced interpretation section on Voldy
*made name section more concise; remove "Valdemar" blurb as of WP:NOR
*Merged some parts of"Attributes and traits" section into the publication history and fictional bio
*General copyedit
Hope you like the new version, I think it is less crufty, more relevant in real life now and more accessible for non-fans. If you feel something is missing, feel free to re-add it in an appropriate way; in my rewrite, I could impossibly bring in everything without disturbing the flow. Just avoid unsourced statements as of of WP:NOR.
—Onomatopoeia 08:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks great! I don't have time to go through it all right now, but I thinnk we just need to standardize the looks of the references, and get some citations for the "Name" section and subsection. But thanks for your work -- the article suffered a lot since it was de-GA'ed. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 13:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major rewrite

message: Where did we get the names of Thomas and Mary Riddle? I don't remember those from the books. Bigblawbenjr 19:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grandparents  

message: Excellently rewritten.  Comprehensive and well-written, explains Lord Voldemort very well.  My biggest suggestion is to add inlines in the parts where there are stretches without any.  Otherwise, you might want to get a peer review for a FA assessment. DoomsDay349 01:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CHAMPAAAAAGGGNNEE!!!! :DDDDDD —Onomatopoeia 12:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone that's interested, I've suggested on the project page that we choose another page to rewrite in the same style. Anyone who wants to get involved (and that means you, Onomatopoeia, given that you opened up this Pandora's Box :)) or make suggestions should go there and get involved. Michaelsanders 12:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: D'uh :D Anyway, I will drop a line. —Onomatopoeia 13:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations! I've just heard the good news. Have our project ever got any article passed FA? Causesobad → (Talk) 16:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's good to see people actually excited about a GA.  I've passed a few that haven't even had a comment.  Nice work.  DoomsDay349 16:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cheers! PeaceNT 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Passed GA

message: Seeing as how it bills itself as "comprehensive", I think it should include Japanese.  His name is transliterated rather than translated (トム・マールヴォロ・リドル = Tom Marvolo Riddle, ヴォルデモート殿　is Voldemort plus the Japanese honorific commonly translated as Lord.  I have the book in front of me and you can verify this, if you speak Japanese, on the Japanese version of the same article.
Plus one random comment: "plot dump", which is used twice, does not strike me as an NPOV phrasing.  I think it implies a value judgment about the authorial skill with which the transfer of information was accomplished, in my experience.  See Exposition_(plot_device) for confirmation.  Accordingly, a more neutral phrasing would be "flashback" or "expository dialogue" as appropriate. 220.31.16.20 16:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition To Name List

message: Is the entire article a spoiler? Because I don't see an end to the part of the article that is denoted a spoiler, and being that I've yet to read any HP books, I'm not sure where it would end. I'm afraid to read the rest of the article. 12.150.23.178 21:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't read any article about a character from a book I haven't read, just to be safe.--CyberGhostface 21:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that advice (I was sadly spoiled the ending of Narnia on Wikipedia), but I will say it encourages you to read the series so that you can pretend you're all caught up! Just the same, I've put in endspoiler tags, and a second set of spoiler tags near the bottom of the page. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot Spoiler

message: What th' hell happened?!!! Lord Voldemort article has been erased! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghadden (talk • contribs) 
:Your browser must have loaded a version of the article when the page had been blanked, as it appeared for six minutes earlier this morning, UTC time. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What Happened?

message: I guess I should defend why I think three categories I put on this page, that were taken off, should remain on. I probably should just add them on now and defend them on the talk page after, but this way I use up more of people's precious, precious time.
*Firstly: Fictional immortals. He uses Horcruxes, and as we all know anyone who uses one or more Horcrux is immortal until all the Horcruxes utilised are destroyed. Insofar, all of his Horcruxes have yes that's right not been destroyed, thus rendering him currently immortal. If one seeks to argue that the books are not finished and he may in fact have all his Horcruxes destroyed in Book 7 and die sometime after, then that's fine, the category can stay off. If anyone else agrees with my argument that we should include the category anyway until the next book comes out and we can be sure if it holds true, then good on them. Keep in mind that we can't keep a category off this page because it could possibly technically be speculation; if that held true, then we couldn't have any categories on this page because it could turn out in HP7 that everything the reader knows about Voldemort is in fact an elaborate lie.
*Secondly: Fictional people from London. He was born in London. I think that aptly fits the definition of the word from.
*Thirdly: Fictional characters who have committed treason. Are we sure that throughout his entire life he has never done any act that may be considered treason? If not, then sure, that stays off as well.
Okay, that's it. VolatileChemical 04:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, well, we discussed (briefly, thought there was a much more drawn-out discussion, but I guess I was misremembering or can't find it) back here. I feel that if you classify Voldemort as immortal, it would mean he could never die, which would certainly make for a spoiled ending of DH, which we definitely don't have yet. My bad about London; for some reason I thought he was somewhere else (York? dunno why). As for treason, well, he switched to the Dark Side, but to me it seems like he basically created the Dark Side and thus was already on it when he went on his wild killing spree, not betraying some other side. If somebody has an argument for treason, though, I'd love to hear it, but I'm thinking that he hasn't really betrayed the Dark Side ever. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the treason part. I totally agree with VolatileChemical, on the grounds that, technically when he did his first deed, he was considered to be on the right side of the law. Therefore he did commit treason. Anyways, thats my reasoning. 'Nuff said. Zazzer 21:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely treason is 'crimes against the state'? Whatever 'side' he is on, if he has committed crimes against the state, then he has committed treason. Michael  Sanders 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, well, I can buy that too. Anybody else have something to say on it? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cat sorting 

message: I fixed a small error where it says in the bio that Voldemort murdered his uncle Morfin along with his father and grandparents. Someone else may wish fix it up a little more, since I just did a quick fix to remove the glaring contradiction it creates with what is in the next section. S W Is For Life 21:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictional character biography

message: Minor point: the quote in the second sentence, by Rabbi Jack Abramowicz, appears to have been substantially altered by anonymous users. I restored it to what he actually said. Terraxos 19:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparisons and Interpretations

message: Does anyone know the anagram used in the Japanese translations? It's not here, and it doesn't seem to be on the Japanese article either.  Or did they even use one?  They very well could have just used the English "I am Lord Voldemort" and "Tom Marvolo Riddle"...—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 23:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese anagram/whatever 

message: Although I know not much information was given on Voldemort's entire family tree or family history in the books, and the information that is featured on this webpage consists of all anyone really knows, I just want to make clear that this Family Tree is NOT complete and there is MORE to it, but as I have already stated, there is no way of receiving that information, unless J.K. Rowling were to give it to us herself.
This is an excerpt that Dumbledore describes about the Gaunt Family.
(Chapter 10, p. 212, American Version)
'..."Voldemort's grandfather, yes," said Dumbledore.  "Marvolo, his son, Morfin, and his daughter, Merope, were the last of the Gaunts, a very ancient Wizarding family noted for a vein of instability and violence that flourished through the generations due to their habit of marrying their own cousins. Lack of sense coupled with a great grandeur meant that the family gold was squandered several generations before Marvolo was born.  He, as you saw, was left in squalor and poverty, with a very nasty temper, a fantastic amount of arrogance and pride, and a couple of family heirlooms that he treasured just as much as his son, and rather more than his daughter."'
This excerpt gives evidence that there are other members to the Salazar Slytherin line that are not mentioned on the given family tree on the Wikipedia webpage.  I just want to make it clear that it is understood by me that this is all of the information given out to Harry Potter fans, etc.  I just wanted to make clear that it is evident that there are more people included in the family tree and that this Family Tree that is featured is not completely correct.Heather1011 01:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voldemort Family Tree 

message: I was wondering if maybe we should install Voldemort into the category of Fictional characters with mental illness as in both the books and films he does give the impression of being quite insane.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.247 (talk • contribs) 
:I don't think so, unless it is specifically established within the books that he has a mental illness. True, he's ruthless and power-hungry, but on that basis just about any fictional villain could be put into that category. HonestTom 12:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  There is nothing in the books to suggest that Voldemort has an actual mental illness, and until J.K. Rowling specifically says that he does, it cannot be added.  Arwen Undomiel talk 15:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Merger tags have been added (again-again?) to Lord Voldemort and Tom Marvolo Riddle.  This has been discussed at length (above and also in the archives), and I believe the consensus has been not to merge, and to keep the two character articles as separate articles; there were compelling reasons to keep them separate and no compelling reasons to combine them.  If something has changed which would compel us into combining the articles again, then let's discuss that here.  Otherwise I would suggest the merger tags be removed as per previous consensus.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger again? 

message: during the film version, the scene when the fat lady attempts to break glass at the top of her voice, the portrait to the bottom left shows lord voldemort waving a wand. this is clearly the same dark lord that is seen in the goblet of fire film. 
the perfect time if you watch uk dvd is exactly from 26.00 minutes, observe and report back.
Lord Voldemort seemed to return a year earlier than planned!
T saston 02:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Extremely Easter egg…the appearance is not part of canon.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 03:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brief Appearance in Prisoner of Azcaban

message: If you go  it says that The Guardian reported the opening of the book. Can somebody please find the source for that?
69.244.234.39 19:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was The Observer, found at 
The text shown in the preview trailer read: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2126717,00.html
'Chapter One. The Dark Lord Ascending. The two men appeared out of nowhere, a few yards apart in the narrow, moonlit lane. For a second they stood quite still, wands pointing at each other's chests: then, recognising each other, they stowed their wands beneath their cloaks and set off, side by side, in the same direction.
"News?", asked the taller of the two.
"The best," replied Snape.'
Hope this is good enough and correcly sourced, T saston 23:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening of book? 

message: As the names are not canon, I think they should be deleted. Just wanted to see what others thought before I made the change. Faithlessthewonderboy 06:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voldemort's paternal grandparents 

message: In the first Harry Potter movie, Hagrid has a describes why Harry is so famous. Durring which, a clip of Voldemort killing the Potters plays. His face is hidden, but someone played him in this scene. Who was it?
It was Ian Hart, the same actor who played Quirrel. A mediocre actor if ever there was one if you ask me.
Okay, and I didn't like him either by the way.
Saying that, Quirrel was a separate entity, not Voldemort himself, he was just host to Voldemort who had lost his own body. Baaleos 14:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who Played him here?

message: Why does his Allegiance say to the Death Eaters? In my opinion, it should say to himself. The Death Eaters are loyal to him as their leader, but he does not like to trust anyone. Wouldn't it make more sense to put Allegiance to Himself?
:Seconded. Voldemort has no loyalty to his cronies, he cares little if they die in his service and appears very much ready to torture and kill them himself. Thus, changed. Rotten Venetic 21:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegiance 

message: I think the main picture should be when Voldemort is on the Kings Crss Station wearing a tuxedo. It shows his whole veature, not just his face. Anybody Agree?ThanosMadTitan23 19:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do think we should have a better main image that shows Voldemort more as he normally is, I don't think that specific one would do, since he doesn't really wear that kind of clothing. However, a picture which shows him wearing his normal robes (especially the OotP ones) and with a normal expression would be better. --Sauron18 06:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The new picture is much better. Kudos to whoever put it there. Piggins 18:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: This article is poorly punctuated with even poorer grammar.
"Voldemort engaged in the battle and striked and smitened everyone in hsi reach"
Abysmal but I have rectified some of it. Valentina16 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Punctuation

message: The content that has been added in the wake of the release of the seventh book is absolutely repugnant.  Everything from "The Final Battle" to "Aftermath" in the Fictional Character Biography section is bloated, poorly written, ridden with spelling and punctuation errors, and violates nearly every single rule Wikipedia has established.  Among the offending passages is this, which I find representational of the inadequate tone of the recent additions:
:"Voldemort's death obviously marks the end of the terrible Second Wizarding War and Voldemort's reign of power over all of Great Britain's Wizarding World. By the reaction the Wizarding World after Voldemort's first downfall, it can surely be assummed that the wizarding world yet again rejoiced, possibly even more than the last time."
I am only a casual fan of the Harry Potter series, so I am not equipped to rewrite these sections.  Is anyone else up to it?  Brash 01:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deathly Hallows Content

message: Why does everyone seem so shocked that Voldemort can fly? Weren't members of the Order of the Phoenix and the Death Eaters flying around the Department of Mysteries in the fifth movie? Olosnecaj 08:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that was them apparating through the Ministry, not actually flying, and it was in the confines of a building. Voldemort was actually flying through the open air, at least the speed of a flying motorbike.Also, to compare book and film really isn't the greatest thing to do...the book is written for people to imagine what's happening, the film actually shows what's happening, and therefore illustrates the same scenes differently. --86.144.174.9 23:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flying 

message: I think the picture should be changed to a drawing since keeping the film character doesn't seem right when talking about a book's character. Dumbledore's page has a more appropriate infobox picture. Also, this is not how the character is meant and described to look in the books. Supertigerman 14:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...not sure what you mean. The infobox image for Dumbledore potrays the film actor as well. Peacent 14:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was recently changed. I was referring to the black-and-white drawing of him. Supertigerman 14:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as how movie Voldemort is the most official decent depiction of him, and how his depiction in the movie is in fact very close to that of the books, I'd say we leave the movie picture. --Sauron18 07:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm till confused why a drawing could illustrate the character better than an image form the film. I mean, did that drawing come from the book or was it created by fans? Peacent 15:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who changed the image again? The new one is actually a promotial poster. At least cut the film advertisement. Lord Opeth 02:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the user right above, and to the one above him: I dunno which drawing the other user was speaking of, if it came from the books, I'd understand. However, even if it came from the books, there is only one image in the entire series which I would consider good enough to illustrate Voldemort, but even that doesn't show his face, which makes his appearance in the movies the second most official and best (in almost everyway) representation of him we have. --Sauron18 06:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Someone added that British school children voted voldemort as their favorite literary villain of all time. My question is, should this be an accurate assumption? Harry Potter is the fad now, so it seems to me that it's quite obvious that they'll vote him as their favorite villain. It may be varifiable, but to me, the reliability is low because it's coming from chidren (an unnofficial group of people) who are absorbed in the fad and probably haven't read (eg) Lord of the Rings because of the adult nature of it. --VorangorTheDemon 19:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the kids say it's their favorite character, then it's their favorite character. It's not like they're lying, and it's a little presumptuous to assume that "Oh, they're kids, so he's not really their favorite literary villain". LotR is aimed towards adults, and I admit that while LotR has some very good villains, there's not much we can say if they haven't read it. And we're talking about their favorite villain, not everyone elses'. Ellethwen 03:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Favourite Literary Villian?

message: The article states that Nagini was a Horcrux before Lord Voldemort attacked the Potters.  This is incorrect.  Before the attack on the Potters, Voldemort had in place the following Horcruxes: the diary, the ring, the locket, the cup, the diadem of Ravenclaw.  He was intending to create his sixth and final Horcrux (presumably out of an object of Gryffindor's) with Harry's death.  As this did not happen, Voldemort had only five Horcruxes when he returned to his father's house in the first chapter of Goblet of Fire.  It was at this point, and with the death of Frank Bryce, that Voldmoert created his sixth Horcrux out of Nagini (although it could be argued Nagini is the seventh, since he unintentionally made Harry a Horcrux, but to Voldemort's knowledge, Nagini was number six).
Also: It says towards the end that harry was made into a "seventh Horcrux", but he was number 8, if I remember correctly89.100.30.199 09:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Harry was the sixth, Nagini the seventh, there was only seven, not eight.  ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 02:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horcrux = Nagini Error 

message: The article suggests ignorance regarding Voldemort's employment or non employment of the name charm in the First War. The 'name charm' I'm talking about is the charm that identifies the location of anyone who says 'Voldemort'; it's used in the last book to capture the main trio.
We do have definitive knowledge that it wasn't used in Voldemort's initial reign of terror: Dumbledore, the contemporary rival and utmost scholar on Voldemort's activities says (in the first book) that he'd been trying without success to convince people to call him by his real name. Dumbledore wouldn't have desired that if occurrences led to trouble. 
I think it's safe to remove that blurb, then. Am I right? Organichu 08:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utilization of 'name charm' in the first war 

message: The article claims that in the second book the name Voldemort is "cursed", technically it has been jinxed. This is nomenclature used by JK Rowling. Can someone change this? 116.14.52.26 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name "curse" 

message: It's spelt pathological... someone change it?
210.1.193.29 12:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "pathalogical" 

message: Shouldn't the introduction start 'Lord Voldemort (né Tom Marvolo Riddle)'? The One 17:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like that sounds right.  ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 02:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: First, it'd be wise to mention that Andrzej Polkowski, the Polish translator of "Harry Potter" books, mentioned in the "etymology section" of the book that he decided to leave Voldemort's birth name in its original English form.
Second, the Russian variation of his name, Volan-de-Mort, sounds like a reference to Woland from "Faust" and "Master and Margarita". If anyone could confirm or deny this, I'd be most grateful.
Oh, and by the way: in Ukrainian, the name "Yarvolod" means something along the lines of "strong ruler" or "cruel ruler" ("Yar-" means "strong", "powerful", "cruel" or "strict", while, as noted, "Volod-" means "ruler")... A "tyrant" then? --89.78.33.251 22:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish and Russian name translations 

message: Hi community, as a member of the Good Article WikiProject, Harry Potter WikiProject and the main author of the Lord Voldemort article which was promoted to good article status way back, I boldly restored part of the article to meet good article standards again.
* Established a firm out-of-universe POV again as of WP:WAF
* Cut back the EXTREMELY BLOATED, UBER GEEKY "fictional biography" part to about 10% of its original length, per WP:WAF
* Dealt with the heavy recentiism in the article, concerning part 7. Especially the Deathly Hallows part was a pure blow-by-blow account of the plot, violating WP:NOT, point 7 (Wikipedia is not a plot summary)
* Cut long, droning in-universe passages which are all unreferenced, as of WP:WIAGA
It is mildly amusing to see a good article overrun by fancruft, original research, and mind-boggling in-universe accounts which do not interest anybody but the uber geeks, but as a guy who wrote 1 "featured" article and nine "good" ones, I have to step in. If not, the article will surely have faced another good article review, which would have been successful as of WP:SNOW. —Onomatopoeia 15:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heavy de-geekification measures ([[WP:WAF]], [[WP:WIAGA]])