Talk:List of Bartimaeus characters

message: I think the article should be marked for spoilers. When i was scrolling down the page i found spoilers about book two, which i had'nt read yet.
You shouldn't be reading an article for a series, and not expect to see excerpts from the book(s) you haven't read!!71.99.110.7 18:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  spoilers 

message: In the main wiki page of this series it mentions hybrids alot. Just do ctrl+f and search for it. What is a hybrid?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.113.173 (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hybrid? 

message: Waaaaait a second... when is the mercenary's name mentioned? I've never heard of him having a name before, and considering how much I adore this series, I'm pretty sure I'd have noticed.
B-Fennec 02:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verroq? 

message: Jessica Whitwell's demon, named Shubit...About it...Is it a djinni or an afrit? In the second book, it described it as a djinni, but in the third, it was an afrit...Or it was the other way around, I don't remember.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by James chen0 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You hve it the right way 'round. I call him an afrt just because it makes him cooler, but we have no idea. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What IS Shubit? 

message: No referencing as yet. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Start-class

message: Isn't Jabor an Afrit? I changed it, sorry if I was wrong, but I could have sworn in the first or second book it said he was an afrit. Leosj (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, he's not. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jabor

message: Can it really be said that his last name was Underwood? His real last name is forgotten (or if he remembers it, ignored). His magicians name is Mandrake. Underwood doesn't seem to fit in anywhere.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.130.24.76 (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nathaniel Underwood

message: Hathor is a goddess. NOT a spirit. Since she is mentioned in the official site she can stay but nowhere does it say she is a spirit. The books say djinn in her temple wore bullheads but that is as close as she gets to spirit. The siute only mentions her godesshood.-Beligaronia (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the spirit section. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually under enchanted beings but sure. Why would the priests worship a slave/demon? We know they summoned djinn so obviously used and abused them same as everyone else. And if she was a spirit she would be so powerful, she would run amok.--Beligaronia (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're completely using WP:OR. The fact is that she is listed as a spirit on the main site. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thereq...: see here: "Hathor — In Egyptian religion, goddess of love and divine mother and protector of the newborn." from official website . I'm agreeing with Beligaronia that she is not a spirit but a goddess, but I'm not sure where to put her. The spirit heading is clearly wrong though. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hathor 

message: I won't change it (she doesn't fit in either section really), But I don't follow your reasoning in that she is a Magician. When did Nat lie? (Yes In am using WP:OR so I won't change the article) -she didn't have knowledge of summoning so she can't have been a magician. (Underwood explains that Nat is nervous about his first summoning why would he need to if she was a magician) Where does it say Magicians and commoners didn't marry? Amanda Cathcart was a commoner albeit a wealthy one and she and Lovelace were getting on fine. and the interaction between Underwood and the teachers showed they did mix at least to some extent in a professional manner.  Thank you for your time.--Beligaronia (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nat tells Whitwell (and the Cabinet) that Martha attempted to take on Lovelace single-handedly, meaning she had to be able to do some magic. Martha and Arthur also have a conversation about "interbreeding" and Martha uses "Commoner" in a way that distances herself from them. I always assumed she was a weak magician because Arthur wouldn't want to be overshadowed by a more-powerful wife. I guess they can intermarry, but it's looked down on by some (Arthur being one); also, a romantic and a working relationship are two very different thing, as we know, and because the magicians are outnumbered, I don't think they could function without it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Nataniel says that "even Mrs Underwood had pitched in, heroically trying to tackle Lovelace herself." This passage indicates that it was an unlikely act "even Mrs Underwood", and that she attacked him physically as shown by "tackle". If she could do magic why would it have been unlikely that she tried to help.--Beligaronia (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Unlikely" meaning she wasn't powerful and you do realise that "tackle" is a figure of speech and isn't always a push? Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Apologies for misusing "tackle". But there is no requirement of magic to attack a magician. Look at Mrs Lutyens, who attacked Lovelace with the same amount of success without a spoonful of magic. And everyone believed she had done it.--Beligaronia (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What d'you mean, they believed? Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your tone indicated that had Martha been unable to do magic it would have been implausible for her to attack Lovelace and the magicians wouldn't have believed Nat's story. I meant that it was plausible for Lutyens to attack Lovelace despite her lack of magic.--Beligaronia (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but her conversations with Arthur still distance her. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For all your WP:OR-bashing in the above post, Therereq..., you are certainly applying liberal amounts here. Martha is never shown to perform magic, and the official website (which would be considered canonical information) does not state this: "Arthur Underwood's diminutive wife and close friend to Nathaniel." (). Buuuutttt... with that said she is never expressed directly as a commoner either. I would propose leaving her as a magician but with the addition of a note that states clearly that her magical skills are questionable. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Well I made a note anyway indicating her dubious status. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martha Underwood 

message: Er, whatever happened to the section on Nathaniel? His individual page just redirects here. Alessandriana (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It got deleted without a merger. I think User:MBisanz (Closing Admin) gave the page to User:A Nobody but I don't know what he did to it. If you can start writiing the section again feel free. --Beligaronia (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked Special:Allpages. A Nobody doesn't appear to have it in a subpage, and is on wikibreak at the moment. (Then again so am I...) -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Where's Nathaniel?

message: "Beneath his friendly demeanor was a sadistic, powerful, mastermind who was willing to make his plans work by any means necessary." As Makepeace was never described in such strong terms in the novels, this seems like editorial license by the article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.49.208 (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of Quentin Makepeace 

message: There is no mention at all of principal characters in the main article Bartimaeus Trilogy (now Bartimaeus Sequence), and we have this way over-elaborated article that in a piecemeal way, tells the whole plot in terms of the roles of the characters!  The grammar and diction are (or were) egregious.  This is an encyclopedia - a concise scholarly summary of the topic, i.e. a book or books.  Only the principal characters (limit a dozen?) need to be described.  Other characters can be named, with roles (magician, demon, etc) in a bullet list (but again be brief, a dozen, no more).  If you want to know more, READ THE BOOK!  The wiki is not an almanac, or a literary review, or literary criticism.  This article can be summarized into a reasonable section-length presentation, and merged into the main article, where it belongs.  First things first.Sbalfour (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of article? 

message: It doesn't help anyone comprehend the book to make a randomly inclusive list of every proper name of person, being or spirit that
appears in the books for any reason.  That's not scholarship.  This is ostensibly a list of participatory characters in the story,
not just names in passing.  I'd suggest some inclusion/exclusion criteria like the name must appear at least a dozen times in the
text, and the character it represents must be in close relationship with a major character, or a key participant in one of the
important events of the story.  To keep things in proportion, I'd further limit the 'Other named spirits' list to 20 names (currently 37).Sbalfour (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other named spirits section moved here pending cleanup 

message: I've substantially cleaned up and shortened the text:
*Eliminated all references to how characters died.  These details have nothing to do with the role of the character - they may be moved to the appropriate Plot Summary sections of the book articles
*Reduced or eliminated details of characters involvement in events - these are properly part of the plot, and should be moved to the appropriate Plot Summary sections of the book articles.
*reclassified several characters according to how they were described in the book, rather than speculation by editors: Clem Hopkins, Martha Underwood
*omitted many trivial details of characters physical appearance.  Since books are not a visual medium, the character's appearance is not a notable part of the character
Sbalfour (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup