Talk:Hogwarts subjects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.

Okay, I just noticed that, almost ANYWHERE Defense Against the Dark Arts class is mentioned, it is spelled "Defence." Is this some sort of crazy UK spelling that I'm unaware of, or is it seriously spelled wrong in just about every reference to the class?

No, it is not a "crazy" UK spelling, it is simply the way the word is spelled in British English. --PKirlin 18:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there no article on crystal balls or tea leaf reading? The Recycling Troll

There probably should be, it isn't like those were made up for Harry Potter. -Arctic.gnome

I didn't even think that Snape was potentially cursed by the position, I thought Voldemort would have removed the curse. This puts an entirely new spin on my interpretation of events. --24.22.227.53 05:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It also seems quite probable that the role of Head of Slytherin may be tied to that of Potions master, although, currently, this is no more than conjecture.

If that were true, wouldn't Slughorn have become Head of Slytherin in HBP? --209.86.18.237 07:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is Rowling’s math ability cited as a reason for the 6th subject? I think she and her editor are good enough to handle single-digit subtraction. -Arctic.gnome

Where does it state in the books that Arithmancy is equivilent to numerology. It seems like this is a assumption. My understanding was that it was the use of mathematics to cast spells.

Arithmancy is an existing subject, and there is no reason to assume that JKR changed the meaning for the books. —Cuiviénen 02:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Charms

I think that the paragraph on Charms is a little too flippant and colloquial for an encyclopedia entry. What does the noise level of the class or the fact that H/R/H have used it as a cover for conversations have anything to do with the class cirriculum? I think it needs to be cleaned up. I might take a stab at it myself later, if no one has any objections. PantherFoxie 17:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accidental Revert

Please could someone revert my edit to the previous edit by Trapolator? Michaelsanders 11:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That's it?

So wizards have no arts or social studies? --24.235.229.208 18:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not that have been mentioned in the books. There was that choir in one of the films, but nobody knows much of anything about it. --PKirlin 19:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
History of Magic is sort of like social studies. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Pattern' of DADA teachers

Currently the following text is in the article:

Notably, there is a pattern to the fates of four of the Professors: The First (Quirininus Quirrell, but possessed by Voldemort) and Fourth ('Alastor Moody', but in reality Barty Crouch) D.A.D.A. Professors, both secretly in the service of Voldemort, perished in Voldemort's service whilst working at Hogwarts; the Second (Gilderoy Lockhart) and Fifth (Dolores Umbridge) D.A.D.A. Professors both suffered harm as a result of their machinations at the school, but did not die. This pattern does not appear to have continued with the Third (Remus Lupin) and Sixth (Severus Snape): although both left voluntarily and without injury, where Lupin was a firm supporter of Dumbledore, Severus Snape at this point is not (although this pattern is used as evidence by theorists that Snape is 'truly' on the side of the Order of the Phoenix).

I don't agree with its inclusion, because it is hardly a pattern (only lasts twice and breaks on the third), and a generalization not covered in the books, making it slight OR. It is not cited as being used by theorists, and being an active member of the HP fandom myself I've never seen it around (of course, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just saying I've never come across it before). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Comes from Redhen. Michaelsanders 00:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't care who it comes from (though that does alleviate the OR 'charge'), the information isn't even interesting. It's barely a pattern, because it stops this so-called repetitiveness after doing it two times. It is also eding too far into commentary, something not needed there in the article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Fbv65edel. This is not a pattern and should not be included in the article. Third opinion provided. KazakhPol 06:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/g/Talk%7EHogwarts_subjects_cab5.html"