Jump to content

Talk:Lord Voldemort/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7
  1. July 2003 – April 2006
  2. May 2006 – December 2006

Voldemort Wand

In Chamber of Secrets, in the flashback of Riddel, his wand is black, or dark brown, however, in present day, its white and appears boney white. Since we know that Riddel acquired his wand from the same shop as Harry, and the same phoenix gave the feather, could this be a bit of incosistancy between Chamber of Secrets and Goblet of Fire and beyond? Can wands change color? He had a black wand (phoenix feather) and somehow the story changes its appearance, and maintains the concept that it is the sister wand of Harry's. (Phoenix Feather).Baaleos 14:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Learn Grammar!!

Seriously, pick a tense, past or present, and put the whole background part in it. Don't alternate the tenses, fourth graders. 216.165.12.32

Spelling

It's spelled Voldemort, not Voldermort. "I am Lord Voldemort" is a scramble of "Tom Marvolo Riddle". The image name is also spelled wrong, but I don't have time to fix it atm. -- Bilbo1507 23:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The name "Voldemort"--taboo

The article says that whenever somebody says his name in the seventh book, Death Eaters appear, but I thought that is was Snatchers that appeared...?

Pronunciation

Although the article states Rowling pronounced Voldemort's name with a silent t, during her webcast reading of Deathly Hallows on July 20, 2007 she pronounces the t.

"Voldemort" means what?

"Flight (or wings) of death"? Might what to reference what language that is. "De mort" is "of death" in French, but "vol" is "theft", isn't it? 69.152.225.217 14:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly believe that it can be interpreted as "flight(or flies) from death", thus Lord Flies(runs) from Death. It seems both viable linguistically and appropriate. Rotten Venetic 21:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In French or in Latin roots "Vol" also means "flight: or "flying". "de mort" means "of death" or "from death", "from" when used with a place name. I believe that the name means "Flight of Death" or in more typical english translation "Flying Death" since we see in the escape from the Dursley's house, Voldemort can fly, unassisted by broom or thestral. Mrhp57 17:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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)
As a point of interest, the reference to wiki's failings on my page (in that wiki does not express opinions) was actually lifted from a couple of reviews of wiki by external agencies (newspaper articles), which criticised wiki specifically that it failed to express a clear view on certain subjects. I read these reviews here on wiki, don't know where, but someone here has made it their business to record what outsiders think of wiki, so perhaps you could find it and have a read. However, I do endorse it. It is a failing in any article on any subject not to tell the reader what is believed to be the best guess or course, if that is the best that can be achieved. Of course, certainty is to be preferred, by the difficulty with the OR policy is that it is frequently used as a mechanism to exclude content, despite that content being the best available. Those reviewers had identified what they considered a failing of wiki, but which wiki officially considers a virtue. The phrase 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' comes to mind.
As to this article, instinctively I would prefer the article not to retell the book volume by volume, chapter by chapter. I therefore prefer that information about Voldemort should be re-organised, so that first we discuss his early days, then his exile years, then his rise to power, then his fall, and so forth. I think this is more useful to a reader. It is a logical re-organisation of the mixed up information which has been presented piece by piece scattered through the books. Furthermore, there already exist separate whole articles about each book which tell the rreader the main points of what was in that particular book. If they want to know the plot of book 6, then read the book 6 article. If they want a sensibly re-organised account of the important points of Voldemort's life, then they ought to look here, and find it here. The objective is to do something more useful than simply listing events as they were originally presented. The original presentation was intended to confuse. Sandpiper 21:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Having been reading the ongoing war on WP:Not re plot summaries, where plainly one faction is continuing to try to ban them entirely, it also seems to me that my approach is rather more satisfactory for those who oppose plot summary altogether. The objective is not to simply re-tell the story as originally presented, which seems to be precisely what those people object to. Sandpiper 08:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Sandpiper, your preference in terms of the content of the article is not nearly as important as the rules defined by Wikipedia as a whole; to be precise, it matters almost as much as your opinion. Users do not frequent Wiki because they are interested in POV essays, but because they wish to read INFORMATION (yes, this includes book related citations) about the subject they are searching for. It is ridiculous for you to assume that individual opinions are what feed wiki; it is knowledge, FACTS and the like that are encouraged here; this is an attempt to build an encyclopedia that, through hard work and concrete information, may be used in schools and other higher learning institutions to aid in research. As of right now, because of the high volume of irrational opinionists like yourself, that is not possible. Please don't mar wiki's name with your foolishness. (Maytrix Ink)

I would love to see an example of a properly created article about a fictional character according to these "Good Article" standards. I looked up Sherlock Holmes...sort of, David Copperfield...nope, Tom Sawyer...well, I guess, etc etc. Can someone point out to me a fictional character article that is designated GA? Ccrashh 14:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Try Darth Vader's article—it still has GA status. For more examples, look under the appropriate category here. Arwen Undomiel talk 17:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I bookmarked the Good Articles page. However, I still think Darth Vader is little better than this one. There is a section called "Redemption" that, except for the first throw away line, is totally in-universe. Ccrashh 17:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, you could try looking at FAs here. Arwen Undomiel talk 20:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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: {{tl:Unreferenced}} {{tl:Cleanup fiction-as-fact}} {{tl:OR}}

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)

I had a look at the GA page, and as best as I could understand the page, there are very few fiction 'good articles' on all wiki, though to be fair very few 'good articles' all together. However, Harry Potter is listed as one. I would point out that this article needs to be judged as a companion piece to that article, which effectively contains the 'real world' information relevant to this. I see no point in reproducing that information here. I noticed that there are two 'good article's about characters, including Goldmoon. At least, in that case, writing 'Weiss and Hickman wrote' every other paragraph does make sense, because the character also appears in books by different authors. Otherwise it is unhelpfull repetition to keep reminding the reader who wrote the books. Sandpiper 09:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is the case that a lot of conscientious work has been put into this article, and many others like it, but the direction has been wrong. --SmokeyJoe 03:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

ah, but which direction is that? Sandpiper 08:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that the root of the problem is that the article is written with a perspective from inside the fictional Harry Potter universe.--SmokeyJoe 23:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, in about 5-10 years, there'll be enough reputable published critical research and opinion to write externally without introducing the much-hated opinions and original research. Until then, all we can do is report the facts as they stand in the books (especially since, mistakenly in my view, critical opinions and theories from online sources are not accepted). Michaelsanders 01:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The difficulty in finding good thrid party references is a separate problem. Even if the article is entirely derived from the work of fiction itself, it need not need be written from a perspective within the fictional universe.
I think I agree with you on online sources. An online fan forum editorial, especially one that allows reader comments, is in principle an acceptable reference. Unfortunately, I was not able to easily find one that is relevent.--SmokeyJoe 02:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

References to Order of Phoenix film

The references should be updated to reflect information that has become available: It probably is now known for sure if Ralph Fiennes reprises his role as Lord Voldemort, right? Valters 21:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 07:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Page Name

someone suggested moving this page to Voldemort, rather than Lord Voldemort. To prevent future difficulties, I moved it back. Also because it is arguable his name is 'Lord', not simply his title. Or, indeed, his name arguably should be 'I am Lord Voldemort'. However, does anyone have any views on this? Sandpiper 15:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he would describe himself as 'Lord Voldemort' rather than 'Voldemort'. Certainly, he always seems to refer to himself as the former. I think the 'I am' bit has, significantly, been cast aside. Michaelsanders 15:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Error

It says in the article that, to paraphrase, "Voldemort placed a jynx on the Defence Against the Dark Arts office so that no teacher could work for more than a consecutive year." However, Quirrel was there for more than a year, as his tenure predated Harry's entrance into Hogwarts. --AstoVidatu 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't know if his years teaching were consecutive. John Reaves 01:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary: we KNOW that he taught at the school for more than one year, and we KNOW that it is impossible for a teacher to not be out by the end of the year. Therefore, the only way these canon statements are both true is if he taught a year, went off for a year, came back for a year. Michaelsanders 09:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Small nitpick: Voldemortplaced a jynx? Surely you mean jinx? Rotten Venetic 21:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)



Under the Final battle heading it says: "Olivander tells him that it was Priori Incantatem and that Voldeomrt merely needed". The Voldeomrt should really be Voldemort

IIRC, Rowling said in an interview that he taught multiple years at Hogwarts, but only taught Dark Arts for one year. Ophois 05:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for a rederict

I noticed that "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" will rederict, but "You-Know-Who" doesn't (there isn't an article titled that either). Since a lot of characters call him that, wouldn't it make sense to do this? Momoroxmysoxoff 22:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and do it, be bold and all that jazz. John Reaves (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Major rewrite

Hi, after this article got demoted from GA after taking much flak in the last GA review, I skimmed over the talk page and found certain remarks about the strong in-universe view of the article. I was bold and rewrote a good part of the article, intending to put Voldy back into GA range (WP:WIAGA, WP:WAF). Please assume good faith.

  • I tried to make the article look like Batman, a FA about another fictional character: split fictional character bio into publication history (real dates), and a concise fictional bio (in-universe, but based on pub history) as of WP:WAF. I tried to be easy on the original fictional bio, trying to save good chunks, but I am wary of fictional dates. Fiction is not fact.
  • I tried to emulate also the look-and-feel of the Horcrux article, a HP article definitely in range of a GA
  • sourced the fictional data; note I used chapter references instead of page refs, because the English and American versions have different page counts
  • corrected lead as of WP:LEAD and WP:WAF
  • fictional data now is written in present, as required, and only historical real-life data is written in the past tense
  • add sourced interpretation section on Voldy
  • made name section more concise; remove "Valdemar" blurb as of WP:NOR
  • Merged some parts of"Attributes and traits" section into the publication history and fictional bio
  • General copyedit

Hope you like the new version, I think it is less crufty, more relevant in real life now and more accessible for non-fans. If you feel something is missing, feel free to re-add it in an appropriate way; in my rewrite, I could impossibly bring in everything without disturbing the flow. Just avoid unsourced statements as of of WP:NOR. —Onomatopoeia 08:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This looks great! I don't have time to go through it all right now, but I thinnk we just need to standardize the looks of the references, and get some citations for the "Name" section and subsection. But thanks for your work -- the article suffered a lot since it was de-GA'ed. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 13:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge Lord Voldemort with Tom Marvolo Riddle

I think Lord Voldemort should be merged with Tom Marvolo Riddle since they are both the same person at different times of his life. In the books, there is not made any difference between them, on the contrary the teenage is always referred to as Voldemort in HBT.130.236.60.35 11:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"In the books, there is not made any difference between them". O rly? Where did you get that idea from? Correct me if I'm mistaken, I am of the opinion that Lord Voldemort and Tom Marvolo Riddle are entirely different.

"Lord Voldemort" is only something that Tom regrettably became. PeaceNT 12:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Onomatopoeia. In addition - this issue was discussed and debated at great length a few months ago - discussions are preserved in the archives. At one time there were separate articles for Tom Marvolo Riddle and for Lord Voldemort. Then they were in fact merged into just Lord Voldemort, with a heavy spoiler message. The problem became the redirect stub for anyone who searched for "Tom Marvolo Riddle", which automatically redirected to Voldemort, and at first without any spoiler warning, and it became balky and ineffective to try to put up a "spoiler warning gate" to click through at the redirect link. Meanwhile the Voldemort article became long and difficult to manage with the spoilers and essentially the two different "personalities" of Riddle/Voldemort. The best compromised approach was reached by consensus of many editors and HP Project folks. A Riddle family article was created, featuring all the known Riddles, and especially featuring a Tom Marvolo Riddle section representing his pre-Voldemort days (infancy, at the orphanage, and up through his early years at Hogwarts). The cutoff of Riddle/Voldemort was somewhere about the time that Tom created his first Horcrux, and the rest of the Riddle and Gaunt family essentially ceased to exist. Just wanted you to know this arrangement was worked out as the best solution we could come up with. Re-merging will bring back the same old problems with redirecting spoilers etc. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
There could be a section on the Lord Voldemort page with a link to the main article on Tom Riddle, similar to the Darth Vader page. This would show that they are two very different parts of the same (physical) person, but still show that they are two distinct and separate things. Beep Beep Honk Honk 03:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


Let me just say that the article's name should be Tom Marvolo Riddle, as that is his name whereas voldemort is a nickname. I don't know how to make such advanced changes, being that I'm a very occasional wikipedian, or indeed if I can. Rotten Venetic 21:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Unlike Anakin and Clark, Tom Riddle and Lord Voldemort are only treated as separate characters when Harry, et. al. are unaware of who he is. From Chamber onwards, they are always treated as a single character and the articles should reflect that. The Riddle material needs to be merged. Rhindle The Red 12:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
We've discussed this already. And anyways, isn't there the whole "rebirth" thing? Voldemort, for all practical purposes, "died", then came back to life, could he still be truly called the old Tom Riddle? I'm probably wrong, but just a thought. And yes, I know his soul was still out there. But really, Riddle and Voldemort are very, very different. It just so happens that no one in HP even calls Voldy Riddle anymore, with the obvious exception of Dumbledore and Harry. If they are pretty much considered two seperate people in the book, why not on the wiki article? Ellethwen 04:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
But they are never considered to be two different people. No character, even those who do not refer to him as Riddle, ever act as if they are separate people. They always refer to them as one person. Rowling certainly never treats them as separate once his identity is revealed. Again, unlike Anakin/Vader, where it is expressly spelled out that most people considered them to be separate (i.e. Anakin "died" when Vader was "born"), Rowling goes to great lengths to consistantly portray Riddle and Voldemort as the same person. I don't care in the end whether the Riddle stuff is merged or not, it just seems unnecessary doubling of information about one single character. Rhindle The Red 20:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have merged the articles and someone has unmerged them again even though most people want them merged. I agree with Rotten Venetic and think the articles name should be Tom Marvolo Riddle, but I would like to see the opinion of others. Pachoolao 21:35, 27 July 2007 (GMT)

They were probably un-merged because a merge idea has been discussed already and the consenus was to not merge them. Read what T-dot said above. As for the name, the fact that there are seperate articles at this time means that this article's name would continue to be Lord Voldemort. Ellethwen 04:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't unmerge again - Tom Marvolo Riddle is the beginning, middle, and end of Lord Voldemort. While Voldemort abandoned his given name, two people dared to call him out for what he was - Tom Marvolo Riddle. Dumbledore and Harry Potter. The truth is, both were better men and wizards and both knew magic Riddle did not. Harry did not fear death, as he knew his sacrifice not only meant he would be with the ones who death had taken on his own terms, but also because he knew his sacrifice would protect everybody he loved. ... D.A., teachers, Phoenix members. He knew how to do what his mother did - a simple silence charm of Voldemort wasn't binding after that kind of sacrifice.
First of all, I am neithmerging or un-merging this article. Secondly, it probably isn't a good idea to merge before we settle on what to do-andwe've already decided not to merge once before.If you want it merged, slap a tag on the articles and discuss it here before you just go ahead and merge. Ellethwen 14:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Grandparents

Where did we get the names of Thomas and Mary Riddle? I don't remember those from the books. Bigblawbenjr 19:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

They are on the Gravestone in the fourth movie. Pachoolao 21:30, 27 July 2007 (GMT)

Passed GA

Excellently rewritten. Comprehensive and well-written, explains Lord Voldemort very well. My biggest suggestion is to add inlines in the parts where there are stretches without any. Otherwise, you might want to get a peer review for a FA assessment. DoomsDay349 01:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

CHAMPAAAAAGGGNNEE!!!! :DDDDDD —Onomatopoeia 12:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
For anyone that's interested, I've suggested on the project page that we choose another page to rewrite in the same style. Anyone who wants to get involved (and that means you, Onomatopoeia, given that you opened up this Pandora's Box :)) or make suggestions should go there and get involved. Michaelsanders 12:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
D'uh :D Anyway, I will drop a line. —Onomatopoeia 13:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! I've just heard the good news. Have our project ever got any article passed FA? Causesobad → (Talk) 16:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It's good to see people actually excited about a GA. I've passed a few that haven't even had a comment. Nice work. DoomsDay349 16:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Cheers! PeaceNT 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Addition To Name List

Seeing as how it bills itself as "comprehensive", I think it should include Japanese. His name is transliterated rather than translated (トム・マールヴォロ・リドル = Tom Marvolo Riddle, ヴォルデモート殿　is Voldemort plus the Japanese honorific commonly translated as Lord. I have the book in front of me and you can verify this, if you speak Japanese, on the Japanese version of the same article.

Plus one random comment: "plot dump", which is used twice, does not strike me as an NPOV phrasing. I think it implies a value judgment about the authorial skill with which the transfer of information was accomplished, in my experience. See Exposition_(plot_device) for confirmation. Accordingly, a more neutral phrasing would be "flashback" or "expository dialogue" as appropriate. 220.31.16.20 16:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


I´m from Argentina and, logically, I have the books in spanish (except for the sixth). I wanted to tell you that in the Spanish version, Voldemort´s name is still Tom Marvolo Riddle, and then they put "yo soy Lord Voldemort" explaining it was a translation difficulty. franshu200.117.155.129 03:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. In the Spanish Version, Tom Marvolo Riddle is translated as Tom Sorvolo Ryddle so it can fit the translation. --Shadowy Crafter 03:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler

Is the entire article a spoiler? Because I don't see an end to the part of the article that is denoted a spoiler, and being that I've yet to read any HP books, I'm not sure where it would end. I'm afraid to read the rest of the article. 12.150.23.178 21:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't read any article about a character from a book I haven't read, just to be safe.--CyberGhostface 21:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I second that advice (I was sadly spoiled the ending of Narnia on Wikipedia), but I will say it encourages you to read the series so that you can pretend you're all caught up! Just the same, I've put in endspoiler tags, and a second set of spoiler tags near the bottom of the page. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What Happened?

What th' hell happened?!!! Lord Voldemort article has been erased! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghadden (talk • contribs)

Your browser must have loaded a version of the article when the page had been blanked, as it appeared for six minutes earlier this morning, UTC time. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cat sorting

I guess I should defend why I think three categories I put on this page, that were taken off, should remain on. I probably should just add them on now and defend them on the talk page after, but this way I use up more of people's precious, precious time.

  • Firstly: Fictional immortals. He uses Horcruxes, and as we all know anyone who uses one or more Horcrux is immortal until all the Horcruxes utilised are destroyed. Insofar, all of his Horcruxes have yes that's right not been destroyed, thus rendering him currently immortal. If one seeks to argue that the books are not finished and he may in fact have all his Horcruxes destroyed in Book 7 and die sometime after, then that's fine, the category can stay off. If anyone else agrees with my argument that we should include the category anyway until the next book comes out and we can be sure if it holds true, then good on them. Keep in mind that we can't keep a category off this page because it could possibly technically be speculation; if that held true, then we couldn't have any categories on this page because it could turn out in HP7 that everything the reader knows about Voldemort is in fact an elaborate lie.

Okay, that's it. VolatileChemical 04:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, well, we discussed (briefly, thought there was a much more drawn-out discussion, but I guess I was misremembering or can't find it) back here. I feel that if you classify Voldemort as immortal, it would mean he could never die, which would certainly make for a spoiled ending of DH, which we definitely don't have yet. My bad about London; for some reason I thought he was somewhere else (York? dunno why). As for treason, well, he switched to the Dark Side, but to me it seems like he basically created the Dark Side and thus was already on it when he went on his wild killing spree, not betraying some other side. If somebody has an argument for treason, though, I'd love to hear it, but I'm thinking that he hasn't really betrayed the Dark Side ever. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
As for the treason part. I totally agree with VolatileChemical, on the grounds that, technically when he did his first deed, he was considered to be on the right side of the law. Therefore he did commit treason. Anyways, thats my reasoning. 'Nuff said. Zazzer 21:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely treason is 'crimes against the state'? Whatever 'side' he is on, if he has committed crimes against the state, then he has committed treason. Michael Sanders 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, well, I can buy that too. Anybody else have something to say on it? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course Voldemort is immortal. Being immortal just means you live forever. It doesn't mean you cannot be destroyed. And Voldemort is for the time being indestructable anyway, thanks to the Horcruxes. And furthermore might I enquire as to why Voldemort has been installed into the category of Fictional cursed characters?

Anon

Fictional character biography

I fixed a small error where it says in the bio that Voldemort murdered his uncle Morfin along with his father and grandparents. Someone else may wish fix it up a little more, since I just did a quick fix to remove the glaring contradiction it creates with what is in the next section. S W Is For Life 21:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons and Interpretations

Minor point: the quote in the second sentence, by Rabbi Jack Abramowicz, appears to have been substantially altered by anonymous users. I restored it to what he actually said. Terraxos 19:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Japanese anagram/whatever

Does anyone know the anagram used in the Japanese translations? It's not here, and it doesn't seem to be on the Japanese article either. Or did they even use one? They very well could have just used the English "I am Lord Voldemort" and "Tom Marvolo Riddle"...—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 23:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Voldemort Family Tree

Although I know not much information was given on Voldemort's entire family tree or family history in the books, and the information that is featured on this webpage consists of all anyone really knows, I just want to make clear that this Family Tree is NOT complete and there is MORE to it, but as I have already stated, there is no way of receiving that information, unless J.K. Rowling were to give it to us herself.


This is an excerpt that Dumbledore describes about the Gaunt Family.

(Chapter 10, p. 212, American Version)

'..."Voldemort's grandfather, yes," said Dumbledore. "Marvolo, his son, Morfin, and his daughter, Merope, were the last of the Gaunts, a very ancient Wizarding family noted for a vein of instability and violence that flourished through the generations due to their habit of marrying their own cousins. Lack of sense coupled with a great grandeur meant that the family gold was squandered several generations before Marvolo was born. He, as you saw, was left in squalor and poverty, with a very nasty temper, a fantastic amount of arrogance and pride, and a couple of family heirlooms that he treasured just as much as his son, and rather more than his daughter."'


This excerpt gives evidence that there are other members to the Salazar Slytherin line that are not mentioned on the given family tree on the Wikipedia webpage. I just want to make it clear that it is understood by me that this is all of the information given out to Harry Potter fans, etc. I just wanted to make clear that it is evident that there are more people included in the family tree and that this Family Tree that is featured is not completely correct.Heather1011 01:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally: Also the family tree fails to take into account the Peverells. It would also be interesting to note that Voldemort is descended from the second brother (whose name I forget), while Harry is a descendent of the third (Ignotius).

Perhaps a little too melodramatic

The entire article appears to be written a little too dramatically for an encyclopedia article. "Throughout the series Rowling establishes Voldemort as an utterly inhuman mass-murderer" - then later - "a supremely powerful, intelligent and ruthless dark wizard" -"Furthermore, Birgit Zimmermann and Andrew MacNeille from the University of Cologne state that Voldemort is a deeply racist and fascist tyrant, and a main example of bigots in contemporary pop culture." Surely there is a way the article can stress Voldemort's power, evilness and megalomania in a somewhat more detatched and formal style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.247 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps Voldemort himself wrote this article? I know Dr.Doom wrote his too. -Pyro

Categories

I was wondering if maybe we should install Voldemort into the category of Fictional characters with mental illness as in both the books and films he does give the impression of being quite insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.247 (talk • contribs)

I don't think so, unless it is specifically established within the books that he has a mental illness. True, he's ruthless and power-hungry, but on that basis just about any fictional villain could be put into that category. HonestTom 12:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There is nothing in the books to suggest that Voldemort has an actual mental illness, and until J.K. Rowling specifically says that he does, it cannot be added. Arwen Undomiel talk 15:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest removing Voldemort from the Fictional Dictators category. Faithlessthewonderboy 06:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger again?

Merger tags have been added (again-again?) to Lord Voldemort and Tom Marvolo Riddle. This has been discussed at length (above and also in the archives), and I believe the consensus has been not to merge, and to keep the two character articles as separate articles; there were compelling reasons to keep them separate and no compelling reasons to combine them. If something has changed which would compel us into combining the articles again, then let's discuss that here. Otherwise I would suggest the merger tags be removed as per previous consensus. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Brief Appearance in Prisoner of Azcaban

during the film version, the scene when the fat lady attempts to break glass at the top of her voice, the portrait to the bottom left shows lord voldemort waving a wand. this is clearly the same dark lord that is seen in the goblet of fire film. the perfect time if you watch uk dvd is exactly from 26.00 minutes, observe and report back. Lord Voldemort seemed to return a year earlier than planned! T saston 02:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Extremely Easter egg…the appearance is not part of canon.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 03:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It could possibly be another extremely pale, gaunt, evil-looking wizard who happens to be in a painting that happens to be in Hogwarts.Beep Beep Honk Honk 03:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

opening of book?

If you go [1] it says that The Guardian reported the opening of the book. Can somebody please find the source for that? 69.244.234.39 19:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It was The Observer, found at

The text shown in the preview trailer read: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2126717,00.html

'Chapter One. The Dark Lord Ascending. The two men appeared out of nowhere, a few yards apart in the narrow, moonlit lane. For a second they stood quite still, wands pointing at each other's chests: then, recognising each other, they stowed their wands beneath their cloaks and set off, side by side, in the same direction.
"News?", asked the taller of the two.
"The best," replied Snape.'

Hope this is good enough and correcly sourced, T saston 23:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Voldemort's paternal grandparents

As the names are not canon, I think they should be deleted. Just wanted to see what others thought before I made the change. Faithlessthewonderboy 06:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Who Played him here?

In the first Harry Potter movie, Hagrid has a describes why Harry is so famous. Durring which, a clip of Voldemort killing the Potters plays. His face is hidden, but someone played him in this scene. Who was it?

It was Ian Hart, the same actor who played Quirrel. A mediocre actor if ever there was one if you ask me.

Okay, and I didn't like him either by the way.

Saying that, Quirrel was a separate entity, not Voldemort himself, he was just host to Voldemort who had lost his own body. Baaleos 14:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegiance

Why does his Allegiance say to the Death Eaters? In my opinion, it should say to himself. The Death Eaters are loyal to him as their leader, but he does not like to trust anyone. Wouldn't it make more sense to put Allegiance to Himself?

Seconded. Voldemort has no loyalty to his cronies, he cares little if they die in his service and appears very much ready to torture and kill them himself. Thus, changed. Rotten Venetic 21:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I think the main picture should be when Voldemort is on the Kings Crss Station wearing a tuxedo. It shows his whole veature, not just his face. Anybody Agree?ThanosMadTitan23 19:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

While I do think we should have a better main image that shows Voldemort more as he normally is, I don't think that specific one would do, since he doesn't really wear that kind of clothing. However, a picture which shows him wearing his normal robes (especially the OotP ones) and with a normal expression would be better. --Sauron18 06:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The new picture is much better. Kudos to whoever put it there. Piggins 18:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But...The suit is hot!-Pyro

Punctuation

This article is poorly punctuated with even poorer grammar.

"Voldemort engaged in the battle and striked and smitened everyone in hsi reach"

Abysmal but I have rectified some of it. Valentina16 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows Content

The content that has been added in the wake of the release of the seventh book is absolutely repugnant. Everything from "The Final Battle" to "Aftermath" in the Fictional Character Biography section is bloated, poorly written, ridden with spelling and punctuation errors, and violates nearly every single rule Wikipedia has established. Among the offending passages is this, which I find representational of the inadequate tone of the recent additions:

"Voldemort's death obviously marks the end of the terrible Second Wizarding War and Voldemort's reign of power over all of Great Britain's Wizarding World. By the reaction the Wizarding World after Voldemort's first downfall, it can surely be assummed that the wizarding world yet again rejoiced, possibly even more than the last time."

I am only a casual fan of the Harry Potter series, so I am not equipped to rewrite these sections. Is anyone else up to it? Brash 01:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Flying

Why does everyone seem so shocked that Voldemort can fly? Weren't members of the Order of the Phoenix and the Death Eaters flying around the Department of Mysteries in the fifth movie? Olosnecaj 08:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that was them apparating through the Ministry, not actually flying, and it was in the confines of a building. Voldemort was actually flying through the open air, at least the speed of a flying motorbike.
Also, to compare book and film really isn't the greatest thing to do...the book is written for people to imagine what's happening, the film actually shows what's happening, and therefore illustrates the same scenes differently. --86.144.174.9 23:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC).

Error

Poemisaglock 16:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Lord Voldemort definetly doesn't mark Dumbledore as his equal. It's true that he sees Dumbledore as the biggest threat to him (with the possible but unlikely exception of Harry), but he constantly talks about his weaknesses including thinking that love is the greatest protection and that there are things worse than death.... ...But wait there's more! actually not, but have you noticed that every commercial says that these days.

First of all, the prophecy referred to Harry, not Dumbledore...So. That you are "equal" to someone doesn't mean you have the same beliefs. It's a reference to Harry's power being equal to Voldy's because of what Voldemort did. This is all outlined quite well in the 7th book, not sure if you've read it yet, but the deal is that Voldemort marked Harry with the scar, and gave Harry power equal to his own. Yet Harry also had "unkown" power, which related, I believe, to the Elder Wand. Ellethwen 04:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Harry's extra powers is multi-faceted, but it comes down to two simple things; he loves, and he isn't afraid of death, at least if it was a brave death. Also, Harry's boggart is extremely revealing - it's dementor, which Lupin told Harry meant that he was only afraid of fear. The two were blended together when Harry went to face Voldemort in the forest, as he went to death willingly, but with the hidden agenda of repeating what his mother did - being a death / love sacrifice to invoke the ancient magic to protect all those he loved (his friends, the D.A., The Order, his teachers, etc.). In one bold move he stripped Voldemort of a huge part of his power as spells he cast on Harry's friends simply didn't work very well.

Harry has been afraid a few times, but they were the normal fears born of insecurity, such as if the Sorting Hat would reject him outright, or asking Cho Chang out to the ball. He's never shown fear in the face of grave danger. A few times he's even embraced death, noting that he'd see Sirius again, or be with his parents, Sirius, and Lupin.

Picture

I think the picture should be changed to a drawing since keeping the film character doesn't seem right when talking about a book's character. Dumbledore's page has a more appropriate infobox picture. Also, this is not how the character is meant and described to look in the books. Supertigerman 14:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...not sure what you mean. The infobox image for Dumbledore potrays the film actor as well. Peacent 14:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
It was recently changed. I was referring to the black-and-white drawing of him. Supertigerman 14:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as how movie Voldemort is the most official decent depiction of him, and how his depiction in the movie is in fact very close to that of the books, I'd say we leave the movie picture. --Sauron18 07:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm till confused why a drawing could illustrate the character better than an image form the film. I mean, did that drawing come from the book or was it created by fans? Peacent 15:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Who changed the image again? The new one is actually a promotial poster. At least cut the film advertisement. Lord Opeth 02:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the user right above, and to the one above him: I dunno which drawing the other user was speaking of, if it came from the books, I'd understand. However, even if it came from the books, there is only one image in the entire series which I would consider good enough to illustrate Voldemort, but even that doesn't show his face, which makes his appearance in the movies the second most official and best (in almost everyway) representation of him we have. --Sauron18 06:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Favourite Literary Villian?

Someone added that British school children voted voldemort as their favorite literary villain of all time. My question is, should this be an accurate assumption? Harry Potter is the fad now, so it seems to me that it's quite obvious that they'll vote him as their favorite villain. It may be varifiable, but to me, the reliability is low because it's coming from chidren (an unnofficial group of people) who are absorbed in the fad and probably haven't read (eg) Lord of the Rings because of the adult nature of it. --VorangorTheDemon 19:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If the kids say it's their favorite character, then it's their favorite character. It's not like they're lying, and it's a little presumptuous to assume that "Oh, they're kids, so he's not really their favorite literary villain". LotR is aimed towards adults, and I admit that while LotR has some very good villains, there's not much we can say if they haven't read it. And we're talking about their favorite villain, not everyone elses'. Ellethwen 03:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Horcrux = Nagini Error

The article states that Nagini was a Horcrux before Lord Voldemort attacked the Potters. This is incorrect. Before the attack on the Potters, Voldemort had in place the following Horcruxes: the diary, the ring, the locket, the cup, the diadem of Ravenclaw. He was intending to create his sixth and final Horcrux (presumably out of an object of Gryffindor's) with Harry's death. As this did not happen, Voldemort had only five Horcruxes when he returned to his father's house in the first chapter of Goblet of Fire. It was at this point, and with the death of Frank Bryce, that Voldmoert created his sixth Horcrux out of Nagini (although it could be argued Nagini is the seventh, since he unintentionally made Harry a Horcrux, but to Voldemort's knowledge, Nagini was number six).

Also: It says towards the end that harry was made into a "seventh Horcrux", but he was number 8, if I remember correctly89.100.30.199 09:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)SexyIrishLeprechaun

Correction, JKR said it was the dead of Bertha Jorkins.

JKR said that the horcruxes were made using the following people's deaths: The diary - Moaning Myrtle. The ring - Tom Riddle snr. The cup - Hepzibah Smith, the previous owner. The locket - a Muggle tramp. The diadem - an Albanian peasant. Nagini - Bertha Jorkins (Voldemort could use a wand once he regained a rudimentary body, as long as the victim was subdued)

Harry was the sixth, Nagini the seventh, there was only seven, not eight. ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 02:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Utilization of 'name charm' in the first war

The article suggests ignorance regarding Voldemort's employment or non employment of the name charm in the First War. The 'name charm' I'm talking about is the charm that identifies the location of anyone who says 'Voldemort'; it's used in the last book to capture the main trio.

We do have definitive knowledge that it wasn't used in Voldemort's initial reign of terror: Dumbledore, the contemporary rival and utmost scholar on Voldemort's activities says (in the first book) that he'd been trying without success to convince people to call him by his real name. Dumbledore wouldn't have desired that if occurrences led to trouble.

I think it's safe to remove that blurb, then. Am I right? Organichu 08:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Name "curse"

The article claims that in the second book the name Voldemort is "cursed", technically it has been jinxed. This is nomenclature used by JK Rowling. Can someone change this? 116.14.52.26 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"pathalogical"

It's spelt pathological... someone change it? 210.1.193.29 12:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't the introduction start 'Lord Voldemort (né Tom Marvolo Riddle)'? The One 17:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Something like that sounds right. ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 02:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Polish and Russian name translations

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)


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. [[2]]. 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)

Heavy de-geekification measures (WP:WAF, WP:WIAGA)

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. —Onomatopoeia 15:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lord_Voldemort/Archive_3&oldid=1136964951"