Talk:Lord Voldemort/Archive 2

Russian translation
This is what the article on the Spanish Wikipedia has to say about the Russian translation:

That is clearly different from what we currently have here. So... which one is right? --Fibonacci 01:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tweak: the top two lines from Spanish Wikipedia, the bottom two are from here, for comparison. -- LV (Dark Mark)  02:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good move, thank you. --Fibonacci 02:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Who did all the translations? One person? Remarkable job. Brjatlick 02:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Eyes & hair details in the infobox
I figured there was too much details about his hair and eyes in the infobox, so I decided to get rid of the extra details and replaced them with a link to the Personality and Traits. It helps keep summary infoboxes clear while not eliminating access to information, I hope. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Would it be a spoiler...
To categorize this article into "Fictional immortals"? The fact that Voldemort is immortal isn't officially revealed till book 6, but...
 * Whether it's a spoiler or not, I wouldn't agree with that classification anyway. It's been revealed that Horcruxes can and have been destroyed, and besides, Voldemort being immortal means that he could never die. Now -- just go by your own instinct -- could you imagine it being revelead before Book 7 that Voldemort could never die? I don't think so. He has taken steps towards immortality, but like all magic, it is flawed. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 14:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoa, whoa, whoa. Being immortal just measn you'll live forever. It doesn't mean you can't be destroyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.69 (talk • contribs)


 * Nor did I say it meant you can't be destroyed. I said he couldn't die, i.e., you'll live forever. Please make sure not to interrupt my signature next time, thank you! BTW, if you're interested in actively participating on talk pages, I'd recommend you get a registered account. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. I didn't mean to interfere with your signature I just made a mistake typing. I contradicted what you were saying because I thought you were implying that because Voldermort was immortal it meant he was invincible. Clearly I misinterpreted what you were saying. By the way I never really saw the point in creating an account as I don't particularly need one to participate in the talk pages or read the articles.
 * Not a problem about the signature. However, are we on the same page now with immortals? And, quite frankly, you will be taken more seriously (more devoted to the project) with an account, and it will help standardize your edits: often IP addresses change. Of course, to each his own. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Catalan meaning
The catalan meaning was wrongly placed, as it corresponds with "vol de mort - flight of death". The Catalan word "Vol" has not the French meaning of "stealing". See for instance http://www.ibiblio.org/dacco/cat/, if you need a bilingual dictionary ("Cerca al diccionari" meaning "Dictionary search"). --Lionni 09:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As a film villain
I am going to delete this article from the category "Film villains". Because he is more evil in Literature than in film. In film he is more of a monster insted of a villian. Some prople are more evil in books than movies. And Jo says she might make books that may serve as a sideplot after book 7 and this might reveal more about Lord Voldemort

Fear of Death
It is undoubted that unlike Dumbledore, Voldemort feared death above everything else. As the prophecy foretells,, either Harry or Voldemort shall die. There is this theory you can always add that probably Harry will die but something worse will happen to Voldemort, (e.g) perhaps trapped in time and being tortured constantly until doomsday or anything worse than death. (Ahnaf 14:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

"Wizarding World"
I was just wondering about the capilization of the phrase "Wizarding World", because there seems to be some inconsitencies regarding whether or not both the words are capitalized, or only one, or none at all...What I mean is these two: "Most in the Wizarding world flinch or protest when they hear his name spoken openly." and "...and framed Morfin for the murders, who was eventually found responsible by the Wizarding World." I know this is just a one-off, but is it correct in the first place to capitilize either of them?

Categories
Should Voldemort be listed in the category "Fictional terrorists"? He is never called one in the novels nor is any of his Death Eaters. But he clearly uses terrorist methods though one could argue that this resembles more guerrilla warfare. If there is consensus to include him in this category all the Death Eaters should be included, too.

I'm also not sure if Voldemort qualifies as both a sociopath and a psychopath. I'm not familiar with this topic but I think he probably belongs in just one of the two categories.--84.167.133.47 19:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone added Voldemort in Catagory: Fictional Bullies. Should that apply? A mass murderer who advocates (and has practiced) genocide would be a little something more than a mere bully. Throw 23:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now removed all the questionable categories. If someone disagrees he should state his reasons for reinserting them here.--84.167.150.240 13:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * sociopath and psychopath are two words for the same mental condition and he is a domestic terrorist. Please sign your arguments next time 84.167.150.240 and refrain from deleting stuff if you have any doubt what they are.Phnx2ashes 01:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 04:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

this article is a edit war
Someone deletes this article from any villain categories every once a day. So I fear that this will become an edit war. Can someone stop him?
 * Why don't you stop. It's clear that this edit, consisting of removing LV from the villain categories, and this edit, you asking that person to stop removing those cats, were made by the same IP, Special:Contributions/74.12.109.230. It was nice of you to suggest it yourself, I will advise you to follow your own advice and stop. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Might I request your permission to install Voldemort into the category of Fictional personifications of evil. He does certainly belong in their and somebody [I'm sure they have their reasons] keeps removing him.


 * This is a tricky category which is often POV to include articles in. At Talk:White Witch a user just presented what I thought was a good argument to include the White Witch in the category. It's not just Fictional evil people, it's fictional personifications of evil. Do you think Voldemort embodies the sould of evil, and, if so, can you present a decent sentence or two to support you? I'd be with you all the way if we can back it up with evidence. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was me on the White Witch talk page. I have come across a number of villainous characters whom I believed should have been included in said category. People probably think I have an obsession with it. I actually had a very polite edit war with the managing director of the Makuta talk-page on the subject but that's neither here nor there. I was thinking Voldemort is a supernatural being [let's face it, even by wizarding standards he is supernatural] with infernal powers and a complete lack of conscience. You can't really get more qualified than that really. That's my opinion anyway.
 * Hello again, then. :-) As I say, it's important to be really strict with categories, but they're especially tough when they're subjective topics. It's vital to note it's personifications of evil, meaning Voldemort, in a sense, equals evil, rather than "is an evil guy." I thought quite highly of your objective evaluation of the White Witch, she was the first evil in Narnia and thus brought it into the world, but talking about supernaturalism and lack of conscience is, if you'll pardon my saying so, a bit vague and not directly taken from J. K. Rowling. I'll give it a think over, you can too, and we'll come back to this when we can think of how Lord Voldemort equals the essence of evil. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Righto. I'll do some thinking in the meantime.

Anon

That's it I'm moving my article to be delected to another article!


 * I'm sorry, I don't follow you. Could you explain yourself a bit more? --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't me, my last post was 'Righto, I'll do some thinking in the meantime.' I don't even know what 'delected' means, the person who posted the comment above yours appears to be a bit confused. They haven't even signed their post.
 * No, I know, I could tell it wasn't you (history of the page); still, I was asking the person who wrote that what they mean. And I think "delected" is a typo for "deleted," likely, but even then it doesn't make sense. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 14:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "delected" = directed, as in redirected or something, i think. Looks like a threat to bypass consensus and create a shadow article. --T-dot 16:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I say we ignore the fool. In the meantime I've thought of a good reason to install Voldemort in the category of Fictional personifications of evil; he doesn't have a soul. That and he's pure evil. Then again I really don't see the point anymore considering the category is being considered for deletion. Maybe we should leave it until the bosses of Wikipedia have come to a solution as to whether or not to carry out the deletion.
 * Yup, I'd wait it out. Thanks for the heads-up on the CFD though. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 19:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As it appears the delete has been carried out. Oh well, never mind.

Birthday?
Tom Riddle and Voldemort have different birthdays in these articles. It says Tom was born 12-31-26, and Voldemort was born 12-31-25. Voldemort couldn't be younger than Tom Riddle? ;)
 * lol, your right. There are two different schools of thought here. The Chamber of secrets was opened fifty years from 1993 at which time Tom Riddle was sixteen so minus 66 years and he was born on New Years Eve 1927. But according to the "official timeline" from some DVD Hagrid was expelled in 1942 so Voldemort being 16 in 1942 would have been born in 1926. I trust the books more so I'm in favor of going with 1927 as the birthdate, which would make both articles wrong. *shrugs* TonyJoe 14:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * How about we say December 31, 1926 or January 1, 1927? Hermione1980 15:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting to note though that Professor Sybill Trelawney predicted that Harry's birthday was on Midwinter. Only a couple days off from 12-31. It could be an odd coincidence (and they are throughout the book) or it could be something real; Professor Trelawney has been known to make truthful predictions off the cuff before (her deck of cards for instance). Sorry for the lack of detail. I don't have my books in front of me at his moment. Elfich 16:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

An interesting thought on the birthyear situation, that may or may not have been brought up:

Tom was referred to as a prefect by Slughorn when he was asked about Horcruxes. We know he was Head Boy in 7th year, so when he asked Slughorn about horcruxes, he must have been 6th year (he had already opened the Chamber the year prior, as we can see by the evidence that he has no Ring in the memories presented in the Diary and by his own admission).

This could mean that everything we know about him must be bumped up by about a year. Graduation in 1946, birth at the end of 1927, 5th year from 1943-44 (still 50 school years before book 2), etc. Thus, keeping the books in the right. I'll bring a full write up of what I mean later today, when I'm at home. General_Ridley 9:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how what you've said would alter his birth year, though, but I'm happy to hear what you have to say later. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 19:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

here's what I have, which would demonstrate a definitive New Year's Eve 1927 birthday (or New Year's Day 1928)

Old model (based of direct subtraction of 50, and knowledge that he went to school after killing living relatives) birth: Dec. 31 1926 or Jan. 1 1927 (remember, he has to be 11 before he can start Hogwarts)

year 1 1938-39 year 2 1939-40 year 3 1940-41 year 4 1941-42 year 5 1942-43 year 6 1943-44 year 7 1944-45

inconsistency: if this timeline is right, Slughorn made a istake when referring to Riddle as a prefect. Because he would have been Head Boy at the time.

My model: born: Dec. 31 1928 or Jan. 1 1928 year 1 1939-40 year 2 1940-41 year 3 1941-42 year 4 1942-43 year 5 1943-44 year 6 1944-45 year 7 1945-46

The preserves the years Tom is a prefect, keeps the year Tom opened the Chamber (Harry opened the diary in 1993, 50 years earlier was 1943), keeps the summer of 1944 as "The summer of my 16th year", and the diary opening to mid-june could mean June 1944 (50 school years earlier, and within that 1943 part). He opened the Chamber in his 5th year, as we know, so that fits those.

It also keeps him 16 during the whole Chamber thing, where Harry noted that he looked to be about the age of 16.

I've been working on this for a little over a year, and so far it stands the test of evidence. General_Ridley 16:47 2 November, 2006 (UTC)


 * Remind me, why couldn't he be in his sixth year (the year after the chamber) when Slughorn calls him a Prefect? Michaelsanders 00:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, if he was sixteen 50 years before 1993: sixteen in 1943. Turned sixteen 31/12/1942. Turned eleven on 31/12/1937, started school 1/9/1938. Was ten on 31/12/1936. Born on 31/12/1926. Given that Hagrid was expelled near the end of Tom's fifth year, the 42 date is wrong: Hagrid was expelled in summer 43 (so the DVD is wrong. Anyone surprised?). That doesn't affect the-end-of-1926 birthdate at all. Or have I got muddled? Because I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. Michaelsanders 00:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's all very interesting, but what does Slughorn say that restricts his references to a certain year? I don't believe he mentions any dates. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In any case, you seem to be neglecting the fact that the Riddle Murder was in "the summer of his sixteenth year". That's when he was fifteen, not sixteen. He murdered them BEFORE the Chamber was opened. Thus, the murder took place in - if he was born on 31/12/1926 - summer 1942. NOT 1943. And the consequent Slughorn Horcrux chat could - probably did - take place in his fifth year - first of being a prefect - and then Tom created his first Horcrux somewhere between the Chamber being closed and 31/12/1943 - when he stopped being the sixteen year old his diary self was. It's all explained much better than either of us are doing on . Read it. Michaelsanders 13:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand where he's coming from. In GoF, the Riddle Murders are described as having occured half a century, and fifty years before. Fifty years before 1994 being 1944. And if TMR was born on 31/12/1926, he'd be in his final year, and thus not a prefect but head boy in the 1944-45 year; and under that scheme, he couldn't have had the Horcrux talk before seventh year, because he had the ring at the talk. Meaning that, had the Riddle Murders really occured in summer 44, Riddle would need to be going into the sixth year. And thus have his birthdates pushed to end of 1927.

However, your theory is flawed. Riddle is definitely a prefect in the year that the chamber was opened - i.e. on 13/6/1943. Harry notes his prefect badge. The diary, meanwhile, would have been for the calender year of 1943, not the school year of 43-44. He notes that 'the faded year on the front told him it was 50 years old'. The diary was for the year all of the events happened. And the fifty year date is vital to CoS: it is that that the mystery turns upon. Chamber opened fifty years before, Riddle fifty years before. It stretches belief to breaking point to believe that everyone is using the term to mean 'precisely 49 years before'. And that Harry would note the year on the cover as fifty years before if it were not (it's meant to be a normal diary, not a school diary. And thus, it wouldn't cover the school year. If school year diaries even existed back in the forties, they'd be more noticeable than a nonedescript newsagent diary).

But in any case, HBP sweeps away the old date, and confirms just when the Riddle Murder occurred. It happened 'in the summer of his [TMR's] sixteenth year'. Strictly, that is when he was fifteen (although most people, including myself, just looked at the expression and thought 'right, when he was sixteen' - it was only your bringing his dates to my attention, and my subsequent study of Redhen's chronology, that made me realise the mistake). What it ISN'T is fifty years before the summer of 1994. If you say he was sixteen at the time, he offed them immediately after the chamber year, and had the horcrux chat in first term of sixth year; if you say he was fifteen, he killed them immediately before the chamber year, and had the horcrux chat in either fifth year or the first term of sixth year (probably in the fifth year: there's no way he could have researched and created a horcrux in the space of three or so months, let alone one so radical as that diary). Either way, the murder didn't happen in 1944. The fifty year/half century timing at the start of GoF has been replaced by a date which is both more recently stated (and thus more likely to display current authorial intentions - there are plenty of examples of her having changed her mind about details later on), more precise (fifty years is a round figure, and GoFs use of it is neither essential to the plot nor backed up with precise evidence - such as Harry noting the year date) and more reliable (Dumbledore does lie, but has no reason to here; in GoF, the story is being told largely as it would be told in the Hanged Man, where datings take a back seat to drama). It is pretty unquestionable - the Riddles died in summer 42 if Rowling wasn't being too clever for her own good with the 'sixteenth year' term; summer 43 if she was; but NOT summer 44. From the outside: in GoF she may merely have been using common semantics (you will naturally say fifty years rather than fifty one, or fifty two, especially if the dates themselves don't need to be massively precise). On the other hand, given fairly frequent examples of her poor skills in juggling numbers, she may simply have botched the dates, again, either in GoF or in HBP. But, given that the HBP date works, and the GoF date doesn't, it isn't hard deciding which to go with.

Hope that cleared it up for you (sorry about you wasting a year). Michaelsanders 13:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

HBP film
IMDb is essentially a wiki: users submit any random info they find or speculate on, but they cite no sources. So citing IMDb would be like citing an uncited Wikipedia article on Christian Coulson. Wait until the film goes into production too -- they're still finishing up the fifth. Acceptable sources for this sort of casting announcement, besides hearing it from the actor himself or the distributor of the film (WB), include The Leaky Cauldron, MuggleNet, HPANA, HP Fan Zone, Veritaserum, and other fan sites that have been recognized by Jo that support this news together. I believe the script hasn't even been finished yet (Dan Radcliffe said in some interview in the summer, I believe), so we have no way of knowing whether all those Pensieve scenes will even make the cut (I sure hope they do though… that would be a ton of liberties!). --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I know; cutting the Pensieve scenes would remove the film's one coherent plot thread. But, really, let's discuss our opinions on this page (since I can find such talk nowhere else): would you support Coulson if he came back for the part? Personally, I think I would; he did a fantastic job in CoS, and he could (possibly) be one of a limited group of HP actors who continued their roles after Chris Columbus stepped down. Also, they've already made too many snarky changes to characters, such as Tom the barman and the older Lord Voldemort; it would be incredibly stupid if they botched their offer to Christian Coulson. However, considering their track record for the last two Potter films, I wouldn't be surprised. George &quot;Skrooball&quot; Reeves 05:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would definitely support Coulson's return; he has also expressed interest himself to come back (as cited on the HBP film article). And I agree with you, it would be nice continuity to have the same actor return four films later for the same role. : ) --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 14:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed! You know, it'd be rather like Ian McDiarmid returning for the role of Palpatine some twenty years after he first popularized it. And, let's be certain; just because someone didn't originate a role doesn't mean he didn't perfect it. This is an exception to the rule, I know; usually a second portrayer will never be so taken to heart by fans as the first portrayer. Michael Gambon in particular is experiencing that phenomenon these days. Yet, somehow, Coulson was perfect for the role. I sincerely hope he returns; even if they cut his part down to five minutes, I will be cheering him on. If only... George &quot;Skrooball&quot; Reeves 19:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose we'll have to wait and see his tactics by watching the movie, but OotP director David Yates, from what cast interviews and set reports have said, seems very involved with the canon and preserving it into the film. He's a frontrunner for the director of HBP, and if everything people have said about him is true, I think he might recast Coulson. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, one can only hope. You know, I enjoy your company very much. I haven't really been able to talk to anyone about HP on this level before. Thank you! But, personally, I am on tenterhooks for this film; I didn't really like the last two, so I was planning on staying out the fifth, but what you've said has brightened my day significantly. I eagerly await you next response. Cheerio! George &quot;Skrooball&quot; Reeves 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm glad I've done what I have for you -- though know that I do have a busy life, especially as a high school student, and that not replying within an hour and a half of your message is nothing -- during that time I was playing tennis, eating dinner, and writing part of a history essay -- and fairly soon I'm off to hit the hay! So, I'll always answer your response in due time, but I am loaded down with work across the board.
 * Anyway, I wish I could find that quote (I believe it was by Dan Radcliffe) saying that Yates did a good job (in his opinion) keeping to the canon, but there is a recent interview with Yates saying that the book translated to film easily, he shot 3 hours of solid stuff, but that about 45 minutes will have to go… which isn't that bad, really… though I wouldn't mind 3 hours! --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 05:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! Believe me, I know the dilemma you're in -- I'm probably around your age. I, too, have a busy life as a high school student -- though probably not as busy as yours! Also, I'll keep your response time in mind for later chats; I'm really not the type who wants to seem prick-ish. Anyway, thank's for a great discussion, and hopefully we'll chat tomorrow -- same Voldemort-time, same Voldemort-place! Cheerio! George &quot;Skrooball&quot; Reeves 06:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, you're not prick-ish at all! I just wanted to let you know I don't have instantaneous responses! :) --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 15:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you, sir! I'm glad to enjoy the presence of your company! But, really, could I ask you a question? (I know, this is really getting off track!) Are you a registered IMDB user? Currently, there isn't a discussion on Christian Coulson's viability for the HPB film, and I would love to see the results of one, but unfortunately I don't have an e-mail adress (don't know how to set one up). Erm, if you're not, that's okay; I'm just asking. Thank you, O Magnificent One! George &quot;Skrooball&quot; Reeves 16:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom Riddle vs. Lord Voldemort
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; 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. --Fbv65 e del / ☑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. ←Phŋж 2 Âshəs ''   |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. --Fbv65 e del / ☑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 &quot;Skrooball&quot; 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:

Tom Marvolo Riddle
 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]

While at Hogwarts, Riddle assumed a new name, 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. --Fbv65 e del / ☑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. --Fbv65 e del / ☑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. --Fbv65 e del / ☑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. --Fbv65 e del / ☑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. --Fbv65 e del / ☑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 &quot;Skrooball&quot; 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 &quot;Skrooball&quot; 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. --Fbv65 e del / ☑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. --Fbv65 e del / ☑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. --Fbv65 e del / ☑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)

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… --Fbv65 e del / ☑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)