Talk:Lord Voldemort

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review Lord Voldemort has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Harry Potter, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B
This article has been rated as Class B on the quality scale.
Top
This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do:
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines
A Wikipedian removed Lord Voldemort from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Removal date: December 13, 2006
  1. July 2003 – April 2006
  2. May 2006 – November 2006


Contents

[edit] Tom Riddle vs. Lord Voldemort

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.


Tom Riddle and Lord Voldemort are essentially different people. Separating the articles would shorten the Lord Voldemort article and help disambiguate the two John Reaves 03:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The article should stay intact as is. Tom Riddle evolved/matured into Lord Voldemort, he also used both names while in school and a while after as well. So how can you distinguish where the line should be drawn? Just because a person fashions a new name for themselves doesn't mean they are a new person. Tom Marvolo Riddle is Lord Voldemort. We saw from Half-Blood Prince that there was never an innocent little Riddle in the story's past. He just lacked the name at the time.--Phnx2ashes 04:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I was thinking of something more along the line of pre-Horcrux and post-Horcrux. The whole splitting of the soul thing turned him from mortal to immortal(or pretty damn close), human to inhuman, etc. When is mentioned that he used the name Voldemort while in school? John Reaves 04:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In Half-Blood Prince Chapter: A Sluggish Memory. Dumbledore explains that Riddle search for his family past while attending Hogwarts:
"...[Tom Riddle] searched in vain for some trace of Tom Riddle senior...finally he was forced to accept that his father never set foot in Hogwarts. I believe that it was then that he dropped the name forever, assumed the identity of Lord Voldemort..."
--Phnx2ashes 04:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would think the main issue here is that somebody who hasn't finished CoS comes along saying, "Hmm, let's try the Wikipedia article on this character named Tom Riddle," and they are redirected to here. In that case, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning#Spoiler redirects that reveal true identities; however, if the Tom Riddle page (currently a redirect to LV) were made into an article, it should contain a soft redirect with only a few sentences on Tom Riddle himself, without any allusion to Voldemort. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's the main issue, but it's a good argument. John Reaves 23:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
There used to be two articles - one for Tom Riddle and one for Lord Voldemort - several months ago, but they were merged after a pretty emotional argument. See The Archives. The anti-merger separatists insisted that the merger constitutes a spoiler, but the pro-merger AFD crowd carried the day. Personally I think there should be a simple Tom Riddle article that reflects what we know about his life prior to the First War, up to and including his graduation from Hogwarts and denial of a teaching position there. It could include the Grand Pre image from the book, and a screen shot image from CoS. In a clearly marked Spoiler section, a link to Lord Voldemort for "later life" would then be appropriate. The Lord Voldemort article could include an "Early Life" section with a link back to the Tom Riddle article, along with a spoiler warning. Just be aware that if this is done - then you will have within minutes another user-war over a Merger and AFD again, just like before. The separatists will likely lose again. --T-dot 00:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Why not create a Riddle Family article? With TMR (up to whatever date) at the bottom, and a spoiler warned link to LV? Because the current Family of LV article ('The House of Gaunt') is hardly appropriate for the Riddles: the two are stylistically incompatible, and the title is inappropriate (I recall that it is called 'The House of Gaunt' because it is considered more evocative than 'The Family of Lord Voldemort'). And there is a certain (inevitable) amount of info-duplication due to different vantage points in that article. Transferring that info into a separate Riddle Family article would tidy up (and improve the title of) the Gaunt article, would allow this article to be shortened, and allow the difference between Riddle and Voldemort to be maintained. It would also be harder for mergerists to justify deletion of a Riddle Family article, since it would be a separate topic to the LV article (TMR is a member of that family and belongs there, and there would be info there not appropriate for the LV article). Incidentally, I would be willing to support a separate TMR article, whether entirely separate or as part of a RF article, against the merger gang. Not that my support is worth a bent sixpence, but I thought you'd like to know. Michaelsanders 02:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
While I like the idea of a soft redirect, I would have to put forth that anyone who hasn't finished CoS and looks up Tom Riddle is looking for spoilers, and yes there would be another heated debate. The separatists will lose without another proper discussion under the context that this argument was already discussed. Reminds me of American courts: if a simular case was already brought up, that ruling is usually upheld without any care for progression. ←Phŋж2Âshəs |Đ|©| 04:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
There actually already exists the article The House of Gaunt, and I'm just noticing now there is no spoiler that TMR=LV. However, I guess anything further about the Riddle family should go there. I've just created a redirect at Riddle family and Gaunt family to point to the House of Gaunt. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The name, however, is unsatisfactory. Could we please call it something like 'The Family of Tom Marvolo Riddle'? And I do think that it would be more beneficial to create a separate Riddle Family article. In such a case, would rule of precedent even be valid: it would be a distinct issue to the Tom Marvolo Ridde issue of old. Michaelsanders 11:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I think "The House of Gaunt" is more appropriate. Besides, any confusion would be solved by the fact that Riddle redirects there. Are you opposing the seperate article for Tom Riddle? John Reaves 11:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not per se, I merely think it would be simpler, harder to oppose, and bring down a number of birds with one stone to create a Riddle Family article, with young Tom Marvolo included. By contrast, a separate TMR article would be harder to justify, and have precedent set against it. 'The House of Gaunt' is an inappropriate title for an article as much about the Riddle family as the Gaunt family. It doesn't matter that Riddle redirects there, they are not part of the House of Gaunt, and it is hardly appropriate to describe them as being so. Michaelsanders 11:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, in that case I agree (as long a as Tom has a large and prominent section). John Reaves 12:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant! I'll create a Riddle family article, and we can discuss there what needs to be included. Michaelsanders 12:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Riddle family. As yet, very crude. Anyone interested can help. Michaelsanders 12:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much finished, although there are probably bits that need tidying, spoiler warnings that need adding, etc. Does anyone have any comments (comments pertinant to the Riddles go on their discussion page) or objections? Michaelsanders 14:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I object to this, sir. I found the combined article perfectly suitable. Tearing them apart like a piece of his soul from Voldemort is perfectly dreadful. Inquiries? George "Skrooball" Reeves 23:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please specify what you dislike about the new system? It can hardly be improved if you resort to amateur dramatics. Michaelsanders 00:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of having a section for Tom Riddle in a "Riddle family" article, but it would be shot down immediately if there were dual articles on him. I'd suggest having a brief lead on Tom Riddle, of course marked with a {{spoiler}} tag, and then establish that Tom Riddle went on to become Voldemort and link to it. For example:

[edit] Tom Marvolo Riddle

Harry Potter character
Young Tom in his fifth year at Hogwarts. He is played by Christian Coulson in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
Tom Marvolo Riddle
Gender Male
Hair colour Dark Brown/Black
Eye colour Dark
House Slytherin
Parentage Half-blood
Actor Christian Coulson
First appearance Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Tom Marvolo Riddle was born on New Year's Eve 1926 to Tom Riddle Sr and Merope Gaunt. Through his mother, he is the last descendant of the famous ancient wizard Salazar Slytherin. Through his father, he is a descendant of the squires of Little Hangleton, a landed Muggle family. His mother, Merope, had used some magical means to persuade the elder Riddle to marry her. Later on, she and her unborn child were abandoned by Riddle while she was pregnant.

One New Year's Eve night, Merope wandered into an orphanage in London when she suspected she was about to enter labour. After giving birth, Merope asked the matron to name her son Tom, after his father, and Marvolo, after his maternal grandfather, Marvolo Gaunt, and died within the hour.

Riddle was raised at the orphanage. From an early age, he showed great magical abilities and extraordinary insensitivity (he did not cry when he was a baby). At school, he was very gifted and showed a great thirst for knowledge, but was previously known as a bully who tortured other children in his orphanage largely for fun.

Riddle was accepted at Hogwarts, and he attended his first year in 1938. [this might expand with another sentence or two, but just the basics]

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

While at Hogwarts, Riddle assumed a new name, Lord Voldemort.

Main article: Lord Voldemort

Then that would be it. Having two articles on the same thing is wrong -- you'd have to update the other one once you update one. Having a brief intro that leads into the main article makes more sense to me. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There already is a Tom Riddle section in the Riddle family article. What exactly are you proposing? John Reaves 04:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
However, it goes on and on for far too long. It should simply redirect people (in the non-Wikipedia sense of the term) to the main article, Lord Voldemort, where the same text can be picked up. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
But it isn't repeating text. It gives the relevant text to Riddle prior to his disappearance. The Voldemort article gives info only relevant to him after his reappearance. There is very little duplication of information. Michaelsanders 09:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Michaelsanders 09:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I say leave it, some duplication is necessary. Other votes? John Reaves 09:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Voldemort article quite certainly had detailed information on Tom Riddle before it was just removed in past edits. This is a perfectly fine version of the article, giving a complete history of Voldemort's life… as opposed to splitting it, where a reader will have to read between two articles to get what they're looking for. However, if the Voldemort article is complete (because, despite what name he went by, it still is him), and the Tom Riddle section is just a few short paragraphs, then you follow Wikipedia's standards. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 13:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The detailed information is still there; it's just in the Riddle family article now, under Tom Marvolo Riddle. To my knowledge, no information has been lost. It has merely been divided, according to whether it relates to the pre 1948 boy named Tom Riddle, or the post 1957 terrorist named Lord Voldemort. It is not at all hard to find information - if it relates to the boy, it's in the Riddle article, if it relates to the cadaverous monster, it's in the Lord Voldemort article. If it relates to both, it's in both. It isn't a terribly complex system. And it means that if a reader of Philosopher's stone reads the Voldemort article, it is at least harder for them to get the Chamber of Secrets spoiled (although, unfortunately, still possible). Michaelsanders 13:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to say it had been lost. I simply meant that it wasn't in its old spot. The point is that Voldemort and Tom Riddle are the same person, and that whether Voldemort is proud of it or not, he still had history as a child, and it would be uncyclopedic to exclude it in a biographical summary of him. However, it is also right to include Riddle in a "Riddle family" article, but if an article already exists on him (for they are the same people), it is in Wikipedia's best interest not to rewrite the article, but to provide a {{main}} for readers to redirect themselves to. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 15:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
A {{main}} would only act as a spoiler. Riddle and Voldemort are essentially two different people. During the years between his father's murder and his first rise to power he underwent many magical and personal transformations, such as ripping apart his soul. Upon re-emerging he began to openly call him self "Lord Voldemort". Are we even your that Voldemort is to be considered human? What with the Horcruxes and the "half-life" brought upon by consuming unicorn blood. John Reaves 15:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. One of the main themes of 'The Seven Riddles' is the progressive loss of innocence. We've seen Harry gradually becoming more world wise and hardened, to the point where he appears now to be on the verge of becoming a killer (which is one reason why I detest the PS film). The same was true for Riddle - he gradually lost his innocence, and changed from an emotionally challenged bully (who had not committed any major crimes) into an amoral and inhuman monster - but through his own actions. Of course, this makes it very difficult to divide between the Riddle persona that he used in school, and the Voldemort persona he constructed, since it was a very gradual change. But Voldemort is very much NOT the Riddle that left the wizarding world in c.1948, for a variety of reasons (as described by Mr Reaves above). And accordingly, it fits with what has been presented in canon to make the divide between 'Tom Riddle', the handsome, intelligent and personable Head Boy of old, and 'Lord Voldemort', the decrepit and inhuman monster that even Dumbledore says was recognised by very few as the Tom Riddle of old. Don't forget that Voldemort himself has assiduously worked to eradicate his former identity as Riddle - he would be unlikely to find many points of commonality with his Diary Memory. Of course, part of the divergence is due to the natural changes in a personality and appearance which take place as people age - we wouldn't separate the Pensieve Snape and the modern Snape (although we do separate Snape and his constructed identity, the Halfblood Prince). But in other ways, Voldemort has deliberately and ruthlessly destroyed his past. Also, don't forget that initially Riddle admired his theoretical wizard father, and hoped that the Riddles were important. And even after the crushing of this hope, and the Murders, he was still legally the Heir to the Riddle family. I doubt anyone would consider that to be the case now.
The division also allows the eradication of what was a rather misleading feature of this article - namely, the rise of the Diary Memory in 1992-3. This was presented as part of Voldemort's general rise. It wasn't. The Memory was clearly portrayed as separate from Voldemort - a previously saved version, if you will, whilst the in-use version changed beyond all recognition. The Diary Memory may have been a Horcrux, but it was nonetheless 'Tom Riddle at Sixteen', not 'The Current Dark Lord known as Voldemort'. It was separate, and had it succeeded in regaining a full body, Rowling says - things would have been very bad. The most obvious assumption being that both Lord Voldemort and Tom Riddle would be at large. Thus, to represent the diary memory as being identical to Lord Voldemort is misleading. The change allows this issue to be properly dealt with.
It also allows this article to be shorter, by removing all information about Riddle pre disappearance to the Riddle family article. Which not only makes this article less of a slog to read, it also allows the Riddle article full justification for existence separate from the Gaunt article - which is necessary, since the Riddles are not of 'The House of Gaunt', and because the two families couldn't be more dissimilar.Michaelsanders 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that I'm not disputing the idea that Riddle entering Hogwarts and the Voldemort who walks out of Hogwarts aren't different people – personality-wise. When it's all said and done, they are the same person. Somebody who wishes to learn about LV may like to know who he was before he turned truly evil. Somebody who wishes to learn about TMR may like to know what he turned into. It's not just about separating persona here, it's about the separation of the same two people. Also, note that I like the Riddle family page overall right now (in response to your third paragraph); I completely agree that the Riddles don't belong on the House of Gaunt page. It's just the almost-article-like section given to TMR that I don't quite agree with. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well then we should give him his own article. The Voldemort article was too long and I think this was one of the most logical solutions. John Reaves 00:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I, for one, think this was one of the most illogical solutions I have ever seen implemented on Wikipedia. For crying out loud, it's the same person! Just because he transforms himself into some evil goober doesn't mean that his former self is automatically dead. It's just... wanky. I don't like it. George "Skrooball" Reeves 00:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately for us, being gooberish and wanky don't fall under the criteria for article deletion. John Reaves 01:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who 'don't like' features of various articles. If wikipedia was run according to what people liked, Dumbledore would be alive, Snape both dead and in a relationship with Hermione, Draco Malfoy married to fifty Mary Sues, and the whole purpose of this encyclopedia destroyed. Isn't it good that it isn't run according to what people 'like', but according to genuine reasons and arguments? For that matter, you also seem to have ignored: 1) Riddle Junior is never said to be dead; 2) Most of the information is not new, but simply split up - so blame the hundreds of editors who wrote it in the first place; 3)People will take you more seriously if your vocabulary doesn't suggest that you are five years old. Michaelsanders 01:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why it was changed, but I personally believe Tom Riddle should be a redirect to Lord Voldemort (like it used to be), like it used to be. That spoiler was from the first book. There's no real need to prevent any chances of a spoiler now. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is your personal opinion a factor here? Look at the talk above^, and provide an argument John Reaves 04:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Uh, I don't mean to sound like a Biggus Dickus, but what's with all the negative responses here? I'm just a lowly user trying to make his way in the Wikiverse. Don't be a playa hater! *giggles* (Sorry, that last one was a joke.) But, really, I'd like to be respected. I'm not a crook. George "Skrooball" Reeves 05:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Uhg, are you kidding me? Anyway, just try to comment with a little more of a...I don't know...serious attitude. John Reaves 06:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Fine, John, Tom Riddle should be a redirect to Lord Voldemort, like it used to be, because there's no real need to prevent any chances of a spoiler now. In addition, they are the same person. These reasons happen to coincide with what I personally believe. My personal opinions do matter to this discussion because Wikipedia is about forming consensus, the reasons themselves, which lie outside of the realm of personal opinion, also matter in this discussion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 06:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC

Why should we potentially ruin the book for a newcomer? There will always be a chance for a spoiler. I not saying consensus doesn't matter (sorry for any confusion). I just meant to point out that more is needed. Maybe through technicality they are the same person, but see above for reasons they're essentially not. Besides, the article was very long and this is a good way to shorten it. John Reaves 06:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no need to prevent any chance of a spoiler now, Deathphoenix? Are you presuming to judge that readers will know about the Riddle/Voldemort issue from the outset? In any case, since 'Tom Riddle' redirects to the Riddle Family article, which is the best place (there are two people called Tom Riddle, you know. Both are on the Riddle family page). In any case, you seem to be missing a fairly major point that there is at this moment no consensus. Different people are asking for different things. You and Superman are the only two asking, in not terribly sophisticated terms, for a lock-step revert back to the pre-division article. As you would know if you had bothered to read the discussion prior to stepping in. Michaelsanders 09:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
In addition, Wikipedia does divide people where necessary. For example. the division of Lemony Snicket and Daniel Handler is very different in background, but there nonetheless. Michaelsanders 09:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
However, in addition to Lemony Snicket being a pseudonym for Handler, he is, as far as I can tell, also a character in the series. I would suggest that the third and fourth paragraphs of the "reality" section be moved to Daniel Handler, as the first two are more of a history and brief bio of Snicket in the real world, whereas the rest of the article is about the book character. I don't quite see the advantages of having all of the information spread out across two articles when it is perfectly feasible to have it just in one, with a short notice in the second one referring a reader to the first. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't a clue about the Snicket article - it isn't my area of interest or expertise at all, having merely seized onto it as an obvious and findable example. I'm not going to even think about what should be done there, therefore. However, here, the advantage is that it makes it easier to find info - if it is about young Tom, it's in his family article, if it's about the Dark Lord, it's in his. It makes the info more manageable. It makes it easier for readers to find information in the two articles, as opposed to the VERY LONG article which was here. And it makes it harder for unsuspecting readers of the first book who haven't yet read the second book to get a nasty surprise should they idly look up Lord Voldemort. It is, I admit, not possible to remove this risk altogether - to do that would require breaking all links between Riddle and Voldemort and pretending they really were entirely seperate - I don't like that idea, since it would be detrimental to the encyclopaedia. However, it does reduce the risk to 'acceptable'. It also allows the differences between the public personae of Riddle and Voldemort to be better shown. I appreciate that you don't like it, but you must see that the article as it stood had reached breaking point - it HAD to cut lose data. And in the process, it has allowed other pertinent points to be sorted out. Michaelsanders 21:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
(Note: I haven't a clue about Snicket either, don't really care for the books.) I understand all of these points quite well. However, here I am, I'm reading the current LV article. Start reading from the "History section." We jump from his birth to his rise to power. His years at Hogwarts are mentioned but are not described. Surely, I wonder, Voldemort had some notable history at this time? I don't want to go to a new article as this one currently directs me to, I want to read it right there: it is part of Voldemort's history, whether he's Voldemort or not. He's more well known as Voldemort, not Tom Riddle – it's the same history of one person, despite his different names. I can't think of much else to say, except that it's one person we're writing about, not two. It's more convenient to have everything as one, not two. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the Half-Blood Prince (character) article does not redirect to Snape. John Reaves 22:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a very interesting point. It was probably to prevent the strong dissent against soft redirects, which, if they were liked any majority of WP users, would have a sentence or two about the Half-Blood Prince and then redirect to Snape. That is, however, essentially what I would like to see in place, but Tom Riddle, without his own article, just a section, wouldn't be a soft redirect – it would be a {{main}} link. I'll have to think about what to do on the HBP article… I would merge all the info into Snape. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a bit off-topic, but still relevant, but opinons and suggestion would be appreciated about the subject of a possible Scabbers spoiler. Please see the Peter Pettigrew Talk Page. John Reaves 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What the devil's happened to the discussion page? Never mind. Anyway I know we're supposed to check before adding Voldy into any villain categories and I've just installed him into the category of Fictional dictators, is that alright?

Anon

Check the archives, there are links at the top of the page. I don't think any "dictator-ness" he displays is relevant enough to warrant inclusion into tat category. John Reaves 15:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader are two separate articles. It might be useful to follow that model. Wl219 08:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro - Mention of French translation twice

The name "Voldemort", roughly translated, means "flight of death" in Latin, French and Catalan, or "steal death" in French.

Curious as to why it is mentioned twice. Disinclination 04:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was flight of death in French and Catalan, and steal death in Latin… --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It is also "theft of death" in French. However, "flight of death" is consistently misinterpreted in the article. "vol" means "flight" not in the sense of fleeing something, but in the sense of flying. So seeing a connection to Voldemort's attitude towards death in the "flight" translation is somewhat awkward. --84.61.246.88 18:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In danger of losing GA status

As a member of the GA WikiProject, I am frankly stunned to see this article in the GA list. Here a comprehensive list of shortcomings I found according to WP:WIAGA:

  1. Well written: neutral. Very long-winded entry, could be better as of WP:LEAD
  2. Broad: FAIL. The article fails to give real-life out-of-universe info, as of WP:WAF. Just few words on how JKR sees Voldemort (this could be an entire section, WP:WAF!), his cultural impact, how other writers see him, how his actors (Fiennes) see him, or other real-life info. Much of the text is a violation of WP:WAF, WP:NOR and WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a plot summary).
  3. Verifiable: STRONG FAIL. No references at all, see WP:CITET, not to speak a lack of real-life info. FYI, as of WP:WAF, Voldemort is NOT born 1926, he was created by JKR in 1997.
  4. NPOV: FAIL. Far too much WP:NOR for a pass.
  5. Stable: pass.
  6. Images: STRONG FAIL. Lack of fair use rationales!! Neutral - Okay for a random article, but I am still not convinced this templates alone are enough for a GA or FA.

Please improve. As of now, the article is (as of WP:WIAGA, WP:WAF and WP:NOT) an example how NOT to write about fictional characters. It is cruft. Please improve, and as a rule of thumb, following guidelines:

  1. Read WP:WAF - the phrases "JKR wrote that Voldemort is...", "JKR fleshed out Voldemorts history by adding" or "JKR established a new side of Voldemort, protraying him as..." should appear 100x in this article.
  2. Add REAL-LIFE info! This is the best way to improve this article.
  3. Reference, reference, reference! WP:CITET (book cite) is your best friend.
  4. If you want to know how all above is done properly, read e.g. Donut (Red vs. Blue). How this is done PERFECTLY, read e.g. Palpatine, Jabba the Hutt, which are both FAs. See the differences in tone and style?

I am quite hard on this article, because I think Voldemort is a very cool character who deserves a very cool article. In this sense, happy wiki-ing! —Onomatopoeia 15:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A Good Article review has now been opened on this article. Homestarmy 17:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
re your comments:
  • (2), the real difficulty is that Rowling is not talking and will not untill the series is finished, for the very obvious rerason that she cannot. Given that she has a £500,000,000 reason not to tell us the truth about her characters yet, even her own comments have to be treated with a great deal of caution. For that amount of money I would lie through my teeth when asked questions about the characters.
  • (3), to say Voldemort was created 1997 is an interesting fact which arguably ought to be included, but it is a completely different fact than that he was 'born' in 1926. The two are not substitutes. But in fact, anyone interested in general background real-world information ought to read Harry Potter, and the individual articles on each book (Harry Potter and...). It does not help the conceptual arrangement of the HP articles as a whole if all that information were reproduced here. Nor would it help that this article was tripled in length my reproducing that stuff here. This article has to be judged as one part of a whole.
  • (4) NOR is always very difficult in fiction. I havn't read the article in detail recently, but in general it does put forward anything other than summarising the way the character is portrayed within the books. Arguable references to section supporting the statements would be useful, but this is not OR.
second list of comments:
  • 1), No, that kind of abstraction just makes the text longer (it is quite long enough). It is perfectly plain that this article is describing fiction, which is the important point.
  • 2) see above, this is handled in different articles, though it is possible to find comments by Rowling about the character. Sandpiper 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am glad that you are so concerned, but I am sorry to say that your arguments are quite easy to dispose of.
  • First of all, for characters of fiction, WP:WAF is not debatable, it is an official guideline. Suggesting to circumvent the JKR references “to retain the flow of the article” is firstly forbidden, and secondly the proof of lazy writing. Colleagues from other fiction Wikiprojects like Star Wars, Comics or Star Trek adhere to WP:WAF and still write genuine GA (and FA) articles.
  • If you people cannot add info without violating WP:NOR (a pillar of Wikipedia, FYI) then DO NOT ADD IT, please! It does not get any simpler. OR is a very safe way to diminish your article, let alone for GA status.
  • Voldy was NOT born in 1926. Voldy is not in Category:Living people and does not fall under WP:LIVING, WP:BIO or Category:1926 births. The Harry Potter books are not an official biography of a person, who (born in the 1920s) must have co-existed with Gandhi, Einstein, Ford or Hitler. VOLDEMORT WAS CREATED IN 1997 BY J K ROWLING. This is the only correct way to do it.
  • Then, the article does NOT make clear that Voldy is a fictional character, created by JKR. It inserts a “fictional” in the first sentence, then goes on straight-facedly that he was born in 1926, started a great war, was disembodied etc. etc., establishing book summaries as a biography. This is a very old bad trick referred to in WP:WAF: inserting a fig-leaf “X is a fictional person” in sentence 1, and then going on 100% in-universe. This is forbidden. The magical words are “JKR wrote that… “, “JKR established that…” or “JKR portrayed him as…” and others. You must use this!
  • That WP:WAF makes the article cumbersome, is fortunately flat out wrong. In the contrary, it makes the article BETTER. Firmly keeping in mind that this is a work of fiction greatly enhances your scope. Just assume good faith – you will be surprised how much better this real-life POV is, much less nerdy, crufty and otaku. Look at e.g. the article of Padme Amidala of Star Wars: this is how to do it!
  • No, sorry, the article does not contain significant amounts of real-life data. Apart from two quotes and the film section (which is slightly better), nada. Read WP:WAF: as significant count interviews with the creators, newspaper articles, essays from reputable critics etc. etc. There are none mentioned or referenced in this article. If Harry Potter already contains it, then please re-use it!
  • In a GA, NOTHING can excuse lack of referencing. It is a 100% failsafe method of getting an article delisted.
Sorry for the long essay, but I wanted to make myself clear. —Onomatopoeia 08:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
No problems about a long reply, attention is appreciated. However, I must point out that this is wiki. The very first rule is that there are no rules except that the decision of Jimbo Wales is final, everything else is decided by consensus. Everything is debateable. It is very annoying when people resort to quoting rules to justify their actions without any better explanation. In fact, that is more annoying than the rules themselves.(which may even be justified)
I did read some of the examples quoted, even made a few edits to red and Black. My objection stands. Some of the examples I have seen quoted use virtually the same text as in an in-univers version, except with frequent, 'the author writes', 'later in the story it is explained by's addded. Just makes the text longer and detracts from the natural way any reader expects to read a story. This is exactly the same argument as whether people watching cowboys shooting indians on TV can appreciate that what they are watching is fiction, and not how real people behave. Of course they understand the difference. Sandpiper 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Until now, this has been a good discussion. As for your objections, I understand your points, but I firmly disagree. Until now, speaking of my own XP, the rules have only improved the articles, and not following them has made them worse.
The main problem is not in prose (I am admittedly picky on "the writer says", I admit that; but however, I enforce that rule myself, see my own GA (Storm (comics)), but rather in structure. The main problem is the start in 1926, which is a bad thing. The by far best order of portrayal of all fictional chars is in real-life chronology, i.e. in this case Book 1, Book 2, Book 3 … Book 6. Book 1 establishes his backstory and his status as embodiment of evil, Book 2 is a retcon bringing in his past as Tom Marvolo Riddle, Book 3 fleshes out his past with the Death Eaters, etc. etc. Real life publishing dates >>> fictional canon dates. Hope I made my point clear.—Onomatopoeia 15:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I here is the skeleton what how I would write this:
Book 1 (1997): In the first book of the HP series, JKR introduced Lord Voldemort as a sinister, powerful dark wizard, referred to in the opening conversation between the characters Dumbledore and McGonagall. JKR establishes that Voldemort has been responsible for a great war in the wizarding world. In addition, he is responsible for the death of the parents of protagonist Harry Potter and was disembodied when he tried to kill Harry, leaving Harry with a lightning scar on his face.(ref HP1, chapter 1) In the course of the story, Rowling describes him as the ultimate archenemy of Hogwarts, letting her characters only refer to him fearfully as "You Know Who".(ref HP1, chapter whatsoever)(ref HP1, chapter whatsoever)(ref HP1, chapter whatsoever) In the end, Rowling reveals he has possessed Professor Quirrell to get the Philosophers Stone in order to win a new body.(ref HP1, chapter whatsoever)
Book 2 (1998): ... JKR introduces the diary of Tom Marvolo Riddle. In the climax of the story, she establishes that Riddle is the young Lord Voldemort ...
...
...
...
...
Book 6 (2005) ...
—Onomatopoeia 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Sandpiper, on your user page you write that you endorse original research, hate citations and favour opinion over fact. OK, your choice, but be aware that there are five pillars of Wikipedia, and original research is strongly discouraged. —Onomatopoeia 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted as GA

I am sorry to say that as per the good article review (see link above), it has been decided to take away the GA distinction from this article. In a nutshell, the main reasons were (see also WP:WIAGA):

  • Almost total lack of references, violating WP:NOR; plus existence of several "fact" tags
  • Firmly in-universe approach, thus violating WP:WAF and WP:NOT (trying to sell plot summaries as biographical data; in addition, wikipedia is not a plot summary)
  • Abundance of original research, violating WP:NOR (especially “abilities” and “name” section)
  • Absence of real-life information (e.g. interviews of the creator, newspaper articles, interviews of the actors, essays of reputable critics etc. etc., see WP:WAF)

As of now, the article carries these yokes, indicating a heavy editing is necessary:

This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!)
This article or section describes a work of fiction in a primarily in-universe style and may need cleanup.
Please help rewrite this article according to the guidelines on writing about fiction, or discuss the issue on the talk page.
This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
 Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.

Assume good faith from my side, but I utterly do not think this is a good article as of WP:WIAGA. Compared to other GAs about fictional people, this sticks out like a sore thumb. I would be happy to re-review it after cleaning up above issues. —Onomatopoeia 08:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/r/Talk%7ELord_Voldemort_f030.html"