Talk:Lord Voldemort/Archive 4

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)
replies: text: The name of Voldemort was left unchanged by the Polish translator because Tom Marvolo Riddle is almost a perfect anagram of Polish phrase "Jam Lord Voldemort" (somehow poetic and slightly archaic way of saying "I am Lord Voldemort"). It is mentioned in numerous places e.g. []. So the remark about the translation difficulties is not correct. The Polish translator was lucky, and did not really need to change/translate anything.
62.111.158.66 09:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And here I was, thinking that Voldie had branched out into commercial jam and jelly production. If someone sold Lord Voldemort Utterly Eevill Jam, I'd buy it. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:57, 10 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. 
BTW, I will add I very much assume good faith from the many contriibutors to this article, but I am afraid that many contributors would be better editing Voldemort in the Harry Potter Wikia than in the real life Wikipedia. —Onomatopoeia 15:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also want to add that both "publication history" and "fictional bio" are STILL too long IMHO, are still quite in-universe, and there is a sore lack of JK Rowling info in both. —Onomatopoeia 16:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heavy de-geekification measures ([[WP:WAF]], [[WP:WIAGA]])

message: Why are there two sections in this article relaying the origin story? The story detailed in the Plot sections seems more than sufficient, and the "fictional character biography" stuff simply begs for cruft. I'd like to take the latter section out; get back to me on that if you would. 
Treybien 17:56 6 August 2007 (UTC)  
::How would you restructure the section? I mean, do an edit restructuring it and then self revert, so we can see the difference. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my idea. I come from WP:CMC, and the INTENTION is that "pub history" reflects out of universe, REAL LIFE development and "fic bio" is a brief retelling of the in-universe in CANONICAL order (catch retcons e.g.). The problem is that WP:Potter is overrun by crufty in-universe editors, who think "fic bio" should take 90% instead of 10% of the article. So, I have no problem cutting fic bio if it becomes a honeypot for cruft. —Onomatopoeia 07:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why two biographies? 

message: I just added a character development section, in the quest for hard out of universe info. Feel free to improve. —Onomatopoeia 08:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of universe info

message: Lets follow guidelines and delete the extraneous anagram list, and begin restructuring the article as other fictional characters are supposed to be listed, see Padme Amidala. Judgesurreal777 20:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Kill the cruft, amisdt the wailing and lamentations of the fanbase. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it could be reinserted into a Wikipedia-legit list, like List of Tom Marvolo Riddle translations, but the Voldy article looks neater than before. —Onomatopoeia 19:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I have a great idea

message: Where is the image of Voldemort that used to be in place (Image:Ralphfiennesvoldemort) before someone replaced it with a non-free image? The new image is entirely unsatisfactory.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. Tola.lawall uploaded the new one - perhaps he/she knows? asyndeton 01:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's worse, this image is on the chopping block... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And the Tom Riddle pitcure is now gone. When did that happen? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been re-added in. Can someone find the source of the pic that used to occupy the placeholder? Some gently young soul saw fit to remove it without findign a suitable replacement. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe there's a picture of him on one of the chapter arts from the US versions of the books that can be used? CHANDLERtalk 10:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: God bless whoever got it back! asyndeton 17:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of Voldemort

message: Last time I checked the book was only set in 'Great Britain' and therefore he only had control over the British Wizarding World. We didn't hear about the other countries so how can it be the entire Wizarding World?
:It says entire wizarding world in the books. CHANDLERtalk 10:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's British arrogance for ya. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Entire Wizarding World? What?

message: Some things: a) you've plagiarized parts of the book. b) you've approached the critical mass of cruftiness (you need a heading on his wand??) and c) lots of unsourced claims (hitler? come on.) David Fuchs (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the massive bloating of the article. Please, no more garbage! Judgesurreal777 23:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: whoa - some meatbag added references to Hitler? I've noticed a more coordinated effort to include communist and hitler references in the article for Harry Potter (character). Maybe this extends beyond the boundaries of just that article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kill the Cruft 

message: I suggest we merge Riddle family into this article, for several reasons:
* much of the info (including the tree) are duplicated
* most of the info means nothing except in the context of voldemort
* the greatest portion of the info is on Tom Marvolo Riddle- ergo, Voldemort. Why is he hacked in two pieces? 
-- David Fuchs (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 39KB for this article: as for the Riddle, no notice when you edit the article, so somewhere less than 30KB. David Fuchs (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it isn't too much trouble, is there a chance you can put togehter an edit that shows the merged data (and then self-revert), so we can take a gander at how things would look? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I was going to do that, and then looking through the article I realized it would kind of be a waste of time. Really, much of the info is redundant, and very little would have to be merged, however the info could probably be better layed out in  a different manner than the appearances... section: or at least have a "Character Background" section where his family could be fully explained. That way, in the appearances section, we could cut down the side explanation (which is rather slim in this case, possibly detrimental: for instance it doesn't explain how Merope enchanted Tom Sr., et al). Unless another place exists, some of the personal traits could aslo be added: but prolly the combined article would be no more than 50KB. David Fuchs (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Sorry for recommending work that didn't need doing. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Riddle 

message: I removed the part stating that Voldemort doesn't "move on" after he dies. This is completely antithetical to the scene in the ghostly King's Cross; one of the points of that scene, exposition aside, is to indicate that Voldemort WILL move on, trapped forever in a Hellish existance as a helpless, subhuman creature. Just as Dumbledore appears to have moved on to Heaven (before the Limbo version of King's Cross fully forms, Dumbledore appears out of pristine whiteness wearing midnight blue robes), Voldemort--who is "beyond help"--will be headed to his own personal version of Hell: Powerless, weak, and just as he was at birth, alone and abandoned. Timmybiscool 02:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, please not that it is not explicitly stated, and therefor should not be put in the article. David Fuchs (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving on 

message: This article needs serious work, I mean it keeps repeating itself and many quotes are used twice!--Dominik92 05:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoa! 

message: Why was this removed? This truly was one of the important non-plot summary things that an article like this should provide. Savidan 01:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because it was really long. We can put it on a seperate page, though. Ellethwen 04:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I was actually just wondering about that, as it may be interesting how translators worked around this. --Burek 10:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of name/anagram 

message: I saw a few articles that seem to pin Voldemort 'winged death' as an allegory for Beezelbub 'lord of the flies.'  One points out the old English phrase "Speak of the Devil and you'll see his horns" which plays nicely with "he who must not be named."  I'm not willing to pay to read the articles, but has anyone else guessed his name (or the nature of his game)? Libertycookies 21:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name source

message: I have some doubts about Voldemort being in this Category. He was sick of power and really narcissistic, but does this make him a character with mental illness? Lord Opeth 17:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. I'll remove it immediately. Evil is not a mental illness; it's basic selfishness. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rowling does refer to him as a psychopath. I guess it depends whether you consider that a mental illness. (I don't.) marbeh raglaim (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listed as "Fictional character with mental illness" 

message: In HP II we see he was a normal looking human as a teenager/adult and then later he looks like a frog. What gives?
-G  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was because of the production of so many Horcruxes, which made him "less human". Lord Opeth 17:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe he had a bad plastic experience, and it turned him evil, just like the Joker, or Two-Face. Or Phillis Diller. ;) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure I've read either directly in the books or in a Rowling quote that the appearance change is due to the Horcruxes.  The reptilian appearance is probably due to using a living creature, a snake, for a Horcrux. Libertycookies 14:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find the reference, pls let us know, would you? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: libertycookies, what acounts for the other 52 years in which he was a snakey thing? If you lose your soul, you get pale, vampires told us that. --Storytellershrink 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Story, everyone knows there aren't vampires. When you lose your soul, you become a Republican. Just ask Karl Rove. He's on Satan's speed-dial. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does Volderort look the way he does?

message: I see no point of replacing a perfectly fine image of Voldemort with the other. The other image is identical, except for the fact that it includes more of the background and the figure of Voldemort is considerably smaller. For that reason, I reverted it to the previous version, as it is more representative of the character. Wikiburger 13:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image revert 

message: The family is notable because of voldemort, and asserts no notability of its own. Judgesurreal777 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It is the same with Snape and his parents. Maybe we can create an article for all the relatives of Voldemort together: the Riddles and the Gaunts. Something like Relatives of Harry Potter, creating a section for the Riddles and a section for the Gaunts. But merging them into this one is not a good idea. Lord Opeth 22:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge in Gaunt Family

message: there are only 4 character in the dursley family mentioned in the book. I think there should be an article for the gaunt family on the basis that they are a key point in the story --Storytellershrink 01:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissagrement with merging of Gaunt family  

message: Ok, i think we need an article titled Horcruxes, that explain the begginings, the user of them, and list them and information about them, with the one on Harry and Nagini having a little information, and a redirect to Harry and Nagini  and remove all else about the remaining horcruxes. In the article Riddle family, there is a part about Tom Marvolo Riddle, which should have the words, "see Voldemort", and thats it. Below the part about Tom jr., there is a thing called Tom Riddles diary. I think this is completely useless and should be put in the aformentioned article, Horcruxes. --Storytellershrink 01:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear God, what a crufty banquet that would be... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Holy crap! Well, looking at it, it doesn't seem SO bad. I'll take a closer look at it later. Did you use the index to find it? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horcruxes and such 

message: Ok, last one. Riddle family should be merged, gaunt shouldnt, its what i think --Storytellershrink 01:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ya to riddle, nay to gaunt 

message: :Image:HP5-TL2-0078.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took care of it with this edit. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As well, I overwrote a newer version of the image with one at a lower resolution as per image discussion. All should be well now - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:HP5-TL2-0078.jpg

message: Appears, as it looks now, to be nothing more than an in-universe retelling of voldemorts life, which is covered in the appearances section under books 6 and 7. If more detail is suggested, put some in, but this section is unnecessary. Judgesurreal777 02:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right... I'll be bold then. Magidin 03:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tom Riddle section

message: I've been reverted a couple times now for redirecting the linking of the pronunciation to the new IPA pronunciation key. It doesn't display "IPA" (as it does at the top of the page), but "pronounced" takes you to the same chart. Most people find that flows better in the text of an article. kwami 08:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA links 

message: Does Voldemort really belong in this cat? We know basically nothing about the workings of the Ministry, so who decided he was a dictator? Unless it is stated directly in DH (I don't remember), he doesn't belong in that category. faithless (speak) 02:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but that is an evaluation on your part and, as you most assuredly are aware, that amounts to uncited supposition. We cannot include it. Please feel free to consult the matter, but if it isn;t already removed, i will be removing it until discussion is removed, as per wiki policy. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not an evaluation at all, it's a simple assessment of facts. 86.133.200.236 (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Fiction dictators? 

message: The casting of this role for Half-Blood Prince has been confirmed, but anyone find a reliable source to show that Hero Fiennes Tiffin is, in fact, Ralph's nephew?Kenobifan (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure:     But while we're on the subject, it appears that mention of his casting has been removed from the article. Anyone know what's up? faithless (speak) 13:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casting in Half-Blood Prince 

message: According to the Manual of Style, references should  come directly after punctuation, like so.Hi (Not with a space afterwards, which puts the reference half-way between two sentences.) David Fuchs (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure who it was directed at, but I've cocked that up myself a few times. Thanks, David. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should point out... 

message: Concerning the recent back-and-forth about Voldemort's body being placed apart from the other dead bodies after the battle, it is stated in DH that Voldemort's body was moved to a separate hall, away from those of Tonks, Lupin, Creevey, etc. Now, is it important enough to mention in the article? I'd lean towards no. Cheers, faithless (speak) 06:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned in DH?  I guess it went right over my head.  IMO though, it's cruft.  V-train 06:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, a page or two after V is killed. I'd agree that it's fairly crufty. faithless (speak) 06:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, I saw the section title, and I thought that V-train and I had larger issues than simple disagreement. Now, what do I do with my tac-nukes and boxing gloves? :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arcayne & V-train 

message: I reverted this edit, because 86.133.200.236 obliterated several footnote citations and replaced some of them with textual brackets-and-numbers, thus also losing the dynamic referencing. I tried to go through and fix it citation-by-citation, but since several had been removed it became unclear which citation he was trying to reference at each given point, not to mention the loss of others that might have been references elsewhere. I withhold judgement on the body of the changes, but reverted because of these technical problems. I have written to 86.133.200.236 in his talk page, pointing him to the page on footnote referencing on the proper way to code such references, and invite him to try again using the proper code. Magidin 19:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest revert