Talk:Horcrux/Archive 5

message: Why is this article citing page numbers of the US books, which are totally useless to UK readers? A US page reference can be 150 pages off compared to a UK one. That's why most websites use chapter references as a workable compromise. Also note, I have come across at least one example where the same company is producing different versions of the same book with different page numbering. Sandpiper 23:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - I prefer to quote books by chapter number ... which does not change between editions and versions.  Page numbering often depends on font sizes, chapter and paragraph styling, and use of illustrations.  The US Scholastic edition is available in at least two font sizes: regular and large print.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 00:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  references, useless page numbers 

message: I protected the page because it's a hot edit war where people are talking through edit summaries instead of trying to work things out. Take a deep breath. And talk this out here. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: :One objection: "The horcrux locket fits the general description of the locket at Grimmauld Place"  ... perhaps this is just a matter of wordsmithing, but there is no "general description of the locket" found at the Black residence.  All we know is it was "heavy" and that nobody could open it.  We do have some basic descriptive information of the Slytherin locket from the information segments retrieved in the Pensieve (heavy, golden, Slytherin's mark - an ornate, serpentine S).  In any case it is a significant leap to make the claim as written, and it implies that we know something that we do not, in my view.  I would suggest deleting that misleading statement.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 21:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest referencing the descriptions from book 5 & 6: i.e. similarities between the horcrux locket (described as ... [ref HBP]) and the Grimmauld Place locket (described as ... [ref OotP]) have been noted as similar [ref Granger and Langford]. That way, the burden of mistakes is placed on them (and thus not wikipedia's problem), not us (which would be our problem). However, it all looks a distinct improvement, and I'd happily go along with it. Michael  Sanders 23:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The only "similarities" between the two lockets, in closely examining HBP (ch. 20, p. 437, US Scholastic) and OoTP (ch. 6, p. 116, Ibid), are the words heavy and locket.  That's it.  If Granger and/or Langford imply there are more "similarities" in the "general description of the locket(s)" mentioned in the books or elsewhere, then either we would need to see the canonical proof, or else it does not bode well for their credible reliability.  It approaches a fabricated (and false) mis-quote.  Again, I am not sure we can sustain that statement, however we attribute it.  Posting it, and then blaming Granger for it, seems a little shifty to me.  Just my view though.  Comments?  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. I'll get back to you on that tomorrow (and would simply have left this until tomorrow; however, last time I did that, someone read it as lack of opposition to himself. Michael  Sanders 00:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if cited from the book, the descriptions are OR (synthesis of published material to advance a position). User:Folken de Fanel (corrected by Sandpiper 23:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no OR there, or synthesis, merely saying what the sources say. In what way is there synthesis or OR? Michael  Sanders 23:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is OR, there is synthesis. The source doesn't say the horcrux is in Grimmault Place. Folken de Fanel 23:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know, have you a copy? Langford does say that. Sandpiper 23:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Granger's book says, in essence, that the two share similarities, there is established plot relevance between the DEs and Grimmauld, and thus it would make sense as a horcrux. Not a prediction, merely good, honest, source-based analysis. Michael  Sanders 23:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ican't say what Granger says as I havn't read it, but Langford goes through the whole explanation as I detailed here re Harry and scar, and locket at Grimmauld place. What Langford says is that Most readers who have been following the saga closely have convinced themselves that the truth of the matter is roughly as follows..[stuff about RAB]..The real Horcrux was then 'hidden' in plain view among the Black family's assorted oddments I'm quite happy to simply say a heavy unopenable locket was found there, but maybe Granger said something more precise. Maybe Langford did elsewhere:he wanders a bit coming back to the same thing. Sandpiper 23:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In his main section on this Langford simply mentions the GP locket and states it is widely accepted that it is the same one. Sandpiper 23:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't care about what you think about what these people say (and there is no analysis). OR is OR.Folken de Fanel 10:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't think most of the stuff in Langfords book is original. He says so himself. However, he has made a collection of what is believed about the books and organised it into a helpfull guide to understanding the series. If you fail to understand why this is exactly and precisely the sort of thing which wiki does include, then I am not sure what you are trying to achieve by arguing here. You yourself have repeatedly argued that wiki quotes sourced material. This stuff is, frankly, blindingly obvious, and the only reason we are belabouring this is because you are making a point of insisting upon sources. The main reason there is not much more about this immediately available on the web is that it is old news. Consensus on this amongst fans was reached within a month of HBP being published. Sandpiper 11:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Somebody please capitalize all instances of 'Horcrux'? And the article says Harry put his sock inside the diary. This is true for the movie, but my copy of Chamber of Secrets says Harry put the diary inside the sock. I think I spotted a couple other points of confusion, but I got distracted reading this talk page and I forgot them. MercuryBlue 19:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a bit doubtfull about that: would you capitalise all instances of 'chair' or 'wand'? Sandpiper 08:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look in the books, it's capitalized. John Reaves (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Errors

message: No mentions to liches in the article? they are a very similar concept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.241.255.250 (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  liches? DnD?