Talk: Articles to be merged/Archive 1

Talk page archive
This is an archive of old talk page messages. Please do not edit this page, instead you should edit the actual talk page.

Clevosaurus / Clevosaurus sectumsempra

The same article with the same text. I think this can be eiter merged or redirected.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 12:44, August 25, 2019 (UTC)

The Clevosaurus page has since been sorted and the content put into the other page. - Kates39 (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Not done No objections, merge tag removed. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  20:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Biting jinx and Toe Biter

I just noticed that in March 2019 Oerk put the merge tag onto the Biting jinx page, suggesting it be merged with Toe Biter. I disagree with this based on the distinct descriptions of the two jinxes.

Toe Biter is cast at a person, causing pain around their toes. The Biting jinx is cast upon an object, bewitching it to bite anyone that tries to use it, and not necessarily on the toes. Two distinctly different spells, I see no reason for their articles to be merged. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  15:33, August 19, 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that analysis. The conjecturally titled "Biting jinx" seems to work on objects, whilst "Toe Biter" is the specific name given to a charm from Harry Potter Trading Card Game, meaning that the latter isn't even called a jinx in canon. RedWizard98 (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Well alrighty. This seems to be a consensus, and there's been no other discussion on this, so I'll give it 24 hours and remove the merge tag if there is no objection. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Duel between Molly Weasley and Bellatrix Lestrange/Duel in the Great Hall (II)

The separation of articles clearly adheres to film canon. In the book, four people fought Bellatrix and Molly joined halfway with the other three trying to continue only for Molly to force them back. It was just the two of them in the movie, where Bellatrix is trying to curse everything in sight (uncharacteristically, not fatally) and Ginny is one of her targets, which is the mistake of her life, but again, film only. In the book all four of them take on her almost simultaneously. --SWLover2 (talk) 22:55, November 11, 2019 (UTC)

It's been more than a year and I really think that the, Duel in the Great Hall (II) should be merged with Duel between Molly Weasley and Bellatrix Lestrange as that article has much more information and more detailed article than Duel in the Great Hall (II). Hopefully this can be taken care of! Cheers! ShawONWIKI (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I support merging the two, but the name "Duel between Molly Weasley and Bellatrix Lestrange" wouldn't be wholly accurate if another two people had duelled at one point. It could be called "Bellatrix Lestrange's death". What do people think? - Kates39 (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I think "Death of Bellatrix Lestrange" would sound more formal and wiki-like, but that's just me. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree it does sound more wiki-like. I think merging "Duel in the Great Hall (II)" with "Duel between Molly Weasley and Bellatrix Lestrange" would be the best idea, and then change the name of it to "Death of Bellatrix Lestrange". What does everyone think? - Kates39 (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really like the sound of "Death of Bellatrix Lestrange", events aren't typically named after the death of characters without at least stating the nature of the death (like "Murder", "Assassination", etc.). I'm for merging the articles to "Duel in the Great Hall (II)", since the two, despite their differences, are still both duels in the Great Hall, and having one of them be titled "Duel in the Great Hall" while the other is not feels strange (like the other is somehow less being a duel in the Great Hall than the first one). MalchonC (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I will look into merging these pages under "Duel in the Great Hall (II)" so the content is together, and if anyone would like a new name, they can use {{rename}} to suggest it. - Kates39 (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Done - Peregino (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Orb of light spell and Lumos Maxima

In the cave scene in the Half-Blood Prince film, Dumbledore uses a version of Lumos to cast an orb of light into the air, which illuminates the cave, which he does non-verbally. However, when the Inferi appear, Harry uses Lumos Maxima to do exactly the same thing, simply with the incantation this time. Because of this, I and others believe these spells in the same scene are the same spell. RedWizard98 (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Given how Harry achieves the exact same effect with Lumos Maxima in the same scene in the Half-Blood Prince film, after Dumbledore uses no incantation to light the cave, is it safe to assume that this spell is simply Lumos Maxima? RedWizard98 (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think so.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The only difference between the spells cast by Dumbledore and Harry in the Cave, is that Dumbledore's is nonverbal, whilst Harry's cast is verbal. In that case, if you think that this spell is Lumos Maxima, then this will need to be merged or deleted. I think some moderators/admins should pass judgement first, for additional clarification. RedWizard98 (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I think they used the same spell. Harry's verbal spell did the exact same thing that Dumbledore's nonverbal one did earlier in the same scene. Harry's less experienced at nonverbal spells, so he probably had to say it and the usage of it was non-canonical anyway. I would merge the details into the behind the scenes section of the Lumos Maxima page. I don't see any evidence that it could be a separate spell. - Kates39 (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Shall we merge the two articles together then, and place this information in the BTS section of Lumos Maxima? RedWizard98 (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see why not. Harry's use of it identified the name of the spell. - Kates39 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I was confused when I created the page because Harry's use of the spell in POA and HBP was so obviously different. And I couldn't be sure when he used it in the latter if he just fired a quick blast of blinding light because that's kind of what it looked like in that quick moment.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. In that case, we should delete/merge this article.RedWizard98 (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarifications! I will merge the details into the other page, and delete the "Orb of light" article. - Kates39 (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Done by Ironyak1. - Kates39 (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

"Images of Porpentina Goldstein" and "Images of Porpentina Goldstein"

There is no need for two image categories (https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Images_of_Porpentina_Goldstein & https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Images_of_Porpentina_Scamander) for the same individual, with different names. Female characters are not given separate image categories for both their maiden and married surnames. Both these categories need merging without question, and I'm surprised this hasn't been done sooner. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I brought this up once before, to no reply. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  20:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I think they should be merged under the title of "Images of Porpentina Goldstein", as that is the title used for her own article. This definitely needs merging and there should be no barriers to doing this, as I don't see anyone having any issue with this. RedWizard98 (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

A merging is not possible so I put the category "Images of Porpentina Scamander" into the category: "Images of Porpentina Goldstein".  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 22:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Why could the merging not be performed? Is there something preventing it?RedWizard98 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The only possibility would be to recategorize all the images from Scamander to Goldstein but that's a lot of work.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 23:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that could work, but it would take time, so maybe if a bot was used or if we simply did it together, but manually. Then the second category could be deleted once emptied. Is there no way the two categories could be merged though? RedWizard98 (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I only know the recategorizing. A renaming does not work. I tried once but got the notice that only the category gets a new name but the articles will not be put in the renamed category. A bot could do this, that's true. But I don't have a bot. Perhaps one of the other admins have.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 23:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Bump. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  19:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Not done The CAT is specifically about the appearances of Hogwarts Castle, the architecture. Whichever more newly created subCATs we currently lack, would not change the fact that previously, there wasn't a CAT dedicated just solely for the castle. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:Images of Hogwarts Castle & Category:Images of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry

I've stated this in good detail on another talk page (here), but I don't think this is a necessary sub-category. I've thought that more sub-categories of exact Hogwarts locations would be necessary (like the Hospital Wing, Cursed Vaults, etc), but not this, seen as though virtually hundreds, hundreds of articles of Hogwarts exterior are in the original cateogry. If I were uploading images of Hogwarts, to be honest I would put in the original one because I think it is more simple and straightforward. I would merge them. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think categories should at least be named so that we can tell the difference of them just by looking at the names. I don't think anyone can tell the difference between these two categories without noticing the description of "Images of Hogwarts Castle" that says the exterior of it. Other categories of locations cover both the interior and the exterior (e.g. being inside Three Broomsticks still count as "Images of Hogsmeade") so this category, with its present name, is unnecessarily confusing. MalchonC (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It is extremely confusing, and it is worth noting that almost all images of Hogwarts interior and exterior are images of the "Castle". There needs to be more clarity here, or the categories should be merged to clear up confusion/simplify things for users. RedWizard98 (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll start by how I did for Category talk:Images of devices, the original image CAT is highly inefficient. The only reason why the original CAT still contains both interior and exterior images of the castle, is self-explanatorily because there hadn't been a CAT to differentiate and filter, and I didn't want to spam RecentChanges with MassCAT in one day. Certain people are into requesting for image deletion due to lack of use, it really should be taken into consideration how, finding the desired image out of 2,791 files isn't an easy feat, and people likely would end up using images already seen elsewhere, when searching for alternative becomes a hassle.

If the word "exterior" throws you off track, feel free to remove it from the description. Or, if people prefer, it could be renamed as Images of Hogwarts Castle exterior or something. I named it the without to match the article page, since what's within the castle is more specified, and the CAT is just for what you can clearly see Hogwarts Castle visible. Yes, it still is a rather broad definition for a CAT, but to me it at least wouldn't include images of the general Hogwarts grounds that don't contain a visible architecture.

(P.S.: I just woke up, sorry if the above isn't coherent enough.) --Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

However, still, would it not be easier to merge the two categories together for simplification? By definition, almost all images in "Images of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardy" are of the castle, interior or exterior, so I still don't see why we need two categories for basically the same thing. This is a large image category, but that is not necessarily a problem, since they are so many images of Hogwarts in the series. I think it would be better to make more sub-categories for specific parts of Hogwarts (I was thinking ones for the Hospital Wing and Underground Chambers). The current category you have proposed Sammmm I still find very vague and confusing, since the two are so interconnected, it would be much easier to merge them together, for clarity and simplicity. I think most readers/editors, including myself, see these two categories as too similar. RedWizard98 (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

More specific subCATs as you have proposed, are very welcomed! (Sorry if this part didn't come across in the above. The one for Hospital Wing has been on my mind for some time as well.) That said, just by looking at the first page of Category:Images of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, half of them does not have the castle in view, or rather is located somewhere within. The second page is slightly better, but there definitely would be a difference between the CATs once sorting actually starts happening. I'm pausing the action since there's concerns. IDK, I feel like when you see file:Special-Edition-Harry-Potter-Paperback-Box-Set.gif, file:French Book 1 full cover.jpg, file:German 2016 Pottermore Exclusive Audio Book 01 PS.png, file:Russian 2008 Black Deluxe Edition 01-07 book spine.png etc are something one can easily say "oh yeah, that's the Hogwarts Castle" (what this subCAT is for), and for closeups to a certain degree, it'd become "oh, it's probably somewhere in Hogwarts", if that makes any sense, like people would stop referring to the location as castle because it'd be more specified. For the latter, they'd ideally be sorted to other applicable subCAT, or stay in the general CAT. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Sammm, if an image of Hogwarts is of its interior, it does show the Castle. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

RW, if the location of an image is a classroom (inside a castle), one would call it "a classroom (inside a castle, if wanting to be specific)", but not "a castle". Please think it as a building, it's a gigantic building but still a building. The CAT is for the castle when its visible. Not sure why this is so hard to grasp. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 14:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The category for Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry can be used for files of say, the Hogwarts crest for instance. I have always understood Hogwarts Castle to be the location, building itself. We have separate pages for the school and the building anyway, so I don't see we can't have two for the files. They should ideally be named according to the articles we have, so I wouldn't even put "exterior" onto the end. We can link to the articles in the category pages.

I understand Sam and her concept that the Hogwarts Castle sub-category can be used for the exterior, and then have sub-categories for each room inside the Castle. That way, we don't have to pile everything together. It still needs work, but the final product will be very clear. Because we don't have bot accounts, we can't use our script to do everything at once and take over the wiki activity. I didn't find it confusing when I saw the two categories. - Kates39 (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Duplicate article deleted and unlinked from here - Merge Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Warlocks and "en:Warlocks Complete Magazine"

Both these articles are about the same magazine from Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald and need merging together. I made the latter article, because I did not believe an article for the magazine existed on the wiki, and I also believe the title I gave this article to be the correct full title for this periodical, as given on its image file. RedWizard98 (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

So magazine masthead taglines are not generally included in the article title - Seeker Weekly is not "Seeker Weekly International Quidditch Magazine" and Knitter's Own is not "Knitter's Own Magazine" although these taglines are on the cover images (there are several other examples like this). As such, Warlocks is the correct magazine and article title and details should be added there so they are not lost when "Warlocks Complete Magazine" is deleted. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

So do you (or anyone else) plan on merging these two articles then? I am asking for my own work to be merged/deleted with another. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

As you made the duplicate article, you should move any details you want preserved before the duplicate gets deleted, per your request. --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

There are no details that need moving - the only thing I moved was a larger image of better quality to the article. My article is basically a stub article with no outstanding details on it. This also isn't a personal request, it is one of pure necessity (duplicate articles should not exist on the wiki generally). RedWizard98 (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Done by Kate. Reminder to all: If you don't care how pitches are processed one way or the other, and just want the discussion to be done, please at least request so in a polite manner, thanks. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 03:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Roberts' Obliviator/Wizard in plus-fours

I think we should just merge the name for sure but keep the page as it is right now, I don't know if thats what it mean't but good idea then!

ShawONWIKI (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the initiation to start the convo. The original page title has other problems.

1. It was previously named "Unidentified Obliviator stationed at Roberts' campsite" and corrected by Seth to "Unidentified Obliviator stationed at Roberts's campsite", as seen here.
2. Then, a User, seemingly without any discussion, moved the article to "Roberts's Obliviator", as seen here.
3. Then another User, once again, seemingly without discussion, moved the page to where it currently is at, as seen here.

In any case, it looks like the 's is actually the correct way to do it, so the article needs to be renamed regardless. I couldn't tell from the text if this individual is the only one performing all the Obliviations on Roberts, or others were involved, but I still believe the title could be slightly more descriptive, hence the proposal. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 07:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Well I don't know the exact words but I read it earlier today and it said something on line that multiple people throughout the whole day use the obliviation spell 7-10 times on him. So yes, it is multiple people, so I agree think it should be renamed to, "Obliviator in plus-fours".

ShawONWIKI (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Am I the only one to think that "wizard in plus-fours" should be used as the title? Because it actually appears in the original text, so not conjectural. MalchonC (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Because he's "wizard in plus-fours" in the book, then I favour that name because that has canon support. "Obliviator in plus-fours" sounds fine too, but I would copy the book. - Kates39 (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I went with "wizard in plus-fours" during the rename for the dupe, pretty much for the same reason. But I later think there's a reason why no one chose to rename it as such? Since his occupation is a point of distinction, figured combining the best of both options lol. I don't oppose the canon phrase, just didn't think it's a must. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 09:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Since this topic is no longer really active, I think we should just go with the canon phrase as Roberts' Obliviator was a conjecture which I don't really know why that was chosen as there was a canon name already there.

Cheers! ShawONWIKI (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Curiously, this has been a topic for over a month, so how come no one has tried to merge the pages together, and delete the duplicate article? The user above has made the request it be merged and no one really tried to fix the issue, aside from talking about fixing it. The wiki can't contain duplicate articles, it isn't how an encyclopaedia works. Someone should just merge it today and then discuss renaming the main article afterwards. RedWizard98 (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, so while the deed has been done (for now), would still like to address the previous comment to clear some things up. If you actually read the entire convo, you'd see there's no clear agreement about what it should be named.

1. I first pitched "Obliviator in plus-fours" to preserve parts of what the original article all had in common, the fact that this wizard's occupation was known, but also, incorporated the descriptive part taken from canon.
2. ShawONWIKI initially agrees to the pitch.
3. MalchonC wondered if the canon "Wizard in plus-fours" would be just fine.
4. Kate wondered the same, though wouldn't mind the Obliviator option, albeit not preferred.
5. Read 1-4 again, at this point, still no clear winner.
6. More than 2 weeks later ShawONWIKI came back and chipped in, switching to prefer the canon phrase (at least that's what I got. I'm assuming they were talking about "Wizard in plus-fours", because if not, then there's still no clear option in favor), while stating they don't understand why the other article titles were chosen to begin with.
   1. TBH, if you don't know why something is the way it is, you can always ask? That's what the discussion was for, and seeing that Seth was one of the participant moving the article, if you truly wanted answers, take initiative and invite him here or just directly ask him? Saying you don't understand and chuck the entire thing aside as if people previously involved all didn't know better, while potentially true, isn't always helpful, especially when the lingering question could be solved by communication.

I'm breaking it down because, the convo to me seems clear in the sense that it could still be discussed, so I honestly don't appreciate the insinuation about people having the ability to make changes were purposefully ignoring the request or unwilling to process it, consider the fact that I myself was the one who pitched for the merge, not other User. I placed the merge templates, which the User actually tried to removed first, then came open this dissussion.

RedWizard, all you did was to tell us to do something, but didn't comment one way or another about the title, and that's how an encyclopedia should work? Count on others to make the decision without making your own opinion known? You know why deciding on a name is preferred first? So that less changes would be needed for the target of redirects! Hey, if you don't mind being less efficient and having more work to do, that's totally fine, we don't all work the same. I can only say this, please try not to throw in some statements about how encyclopedia works, when what's happening here isn't at all disfuctioning. Thanks. Sammm✦✧(talk) 03:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It sounded to me like the conversation was in favour of "wizard in plus-fours" based on the fact that had canon support. So far that I can see, MalchonC and I were in favour of "wizard in plus-fours". You had changed the page to that in the first place based on our same logic, and then put above that you "don't oppose the canon phrase". Then ShawONWIKI says they think we should just "go with the canon phrase". So that's a consensus. Rowling could have described him to be an "Obliviator in plus-fours", but she didn't. So I put it under the canon name because nobody had objected to that, the wiki shouldn't have duplicate articles, and it was in canon.

I don't find it too big of a problem to put in the work personally if the wiki wanted to switch to "Obliviator in plus-fours" since I did the merging, but that doesn't appear to be strongly supported. If searching for a character in a book, I would check for how the book described the character and try to search for that first. I thought I would be bold and put the pages together, bringing the info on the two pages up to a better standard in one page. - Kates39 (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Kate, I didn't find a problem with you (or, should MalchonC wanted to do it) processing the request, thanks for taking care of it! I was pointing out why I personally didn't go through with it, I saw potential for more feedback. If others don't feel the same, that's totally fine, and they could take the initiative, as you've demonstrated, which, I stressed, I have no problem with. What I find off-putting, was the way he addressed the issue when he came to my Talk page and how he presented it here. It could have been just politely asked, "hey, this is here for sometime, are we good to go?" etc., instead, there's the stuff about no one tried to fix the issue (because discussing it first doesn't count?). --Sammm✦✧(talk) 11:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh I understand now! Thank you for clearing that up. I didn't know that you had been contacted that way about the topic, or about the other action that had been taken (the "Delete page" situation) so I thought it was about what I did. However, hopefully the action I took can be fully understood by everyone now too if anyone was wondering. - Kates39 (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Principles of Re-Materialisation/The Principles of Re-Materialisation (Essay)

This is simply the title of an essay which appears in the sixth book; we have no idea if this is some expansive, complex magical law or just an essay topic, likely for Transfiguration or another subject. There was no reason to split them up just so an article containing at least 95% speculation about what it could mean as opposed to being straightforward and as factual as possible. This simply an essay title, nothing more, so they should be really merged back together. If there is any speculation about what it could mean, just include it on one single article, not two. The wiki is not supposed be a place of endless speculation about what magic might mean, it should be what it does mean. RedWizard98 (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Didn't see this post; I merged these ealier. Done -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  00:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

No matter, very good job regardless. RedWizard98 (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Done. I have changed the name to "Unidentified creature in Hagrid's Hut" like suggested since it cannot be known what classification it had. - Kates39 (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Unidentified creature and Unidentified beast in Hagrid's Hut

No need for discussion, they're duplicates, so merge them. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW, maybe the name should be "Unidentified creature in Hagrid's Hut". MalchonC (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, probably it should be named as that, but "beast" would not be wholly accurate as the species type is unidentified, so we don't know its MOM classification. But please someone merge them together as soon as possible, duplicates shouldn't linger around for long. RedWizard98 (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Done by Seth Cooper. - Kates39 (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yarwood and Yaxley (1920s)

Is there definitive proof that these two are the same person? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  17:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, see my latest message at Talk:Yaxley (1920s). The character played by Adam Ewan is addressed by name in the deleted scene; "Yarwood" is probably just a transcription mistake. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shopping list in the Artefact Room

This article appears to have been created out of confusion due to a former red link on the Artefact Room page, since the link for "shopping list" was all lower case, whereas the article on this topic is capitalised as "Shopping List". It looks like this was created upon the thinking it was for something that had no article, where it is clear that this item is no different from a normal Hogwarts "Shopping List" given to students, since it was found in a room in Hogwarts. RedWizard98 (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Done by MalchonC - Kates39 (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Zouwu enclosure and Newton Scamander's suitcase

The aforementioned is simply a small part of Newt's suitcase which isn't even a "Zouwu enclosure", it was just a generic part of his suitcase he decided to place the Zouwu when he captured it. There isn't anything special about such a small part of his suitcase, and this could be better placed in the main suitcase article, in my view, so the main article is expanded upon further and is fully comprehensive of all parts. RedWizard98 (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Mention of the Zouwu habitat is already present in the 'Magical Interior' section of the suitcase article, Done. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  11:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Edward Scot and Gareth Greengrass

"Edward Scot" is apparently proven to be an alias of Gareth Greengrass in Harry Potter: Wizards Unite information, meaning the articles should be merged together, since it appears that Scot is not a real individual, just a fake persona. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The game does appear to have definitely confirmed that "Edward Scot" is an alias of Gareth Greengrass, so why has this not been merged yet? Needless to say, bumping. RedWizard98 (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Harry Potter: Wizards Unite is not my area of expertise; when seeing just one side of the argument, I could be easily persuaded that yes, a merge sounds reasonable, however, I'm seeing another aspect, saying that there is possibly an actual (Muggle?) person named "Edward Scot" and that's where Gareth Greengrass possibly "borrowed" the identity.

I do not know if the situation is like Percival Graves (till this date, I have no idea how this person is determined to actually exist and not just Gellert making up a random name while using a random face but that's that) or Albert Runcorn, Reginald Cattermole, and Mafalda Hopkirk when the trio impersonated them and they obviously are "real" people, or if it is like "Vernon Dudley", which is just made-up.

In short, thanks for letting me know about this, but I am not informed enough to make a decision. I can only suggest leaving comments on the Talk pages of contributors who have been primarily focusing on editing WU related articles for their opinion, to hopefully speed up the process. Best of luck! Sorry I cannot be more of use. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone know the story of Edward Scot? How did he change into Gareth Greengrass? They don't look the same, one clearly being younger than the other. So, did Polyjuice Potion have a part in the story? I think the full story so far needs to be determined before merging the articles together, or it could be confusing. - Kates39 (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I've just found the event that tells the full story of Edward Scot (Brilliant Event: Secrets Revealed). Edward Scot was a persona created by Gareth using the appearance of a Muggle called Kensington Millbottom. So, Edward Scot should be redirected to Gareth Greengrass and everything merged. A new page should be set up for Kensington. Does anyone object? If not, I would like to get started on the merge. - Kates39 (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I have never played WU, but I just had a brief check of the wiki for info and found some on the Brilliant Event: Secrets Revealed page, in the following quotes:

• Harry: Where are you off to in such a hurry, Edward? Or should I say "Gareth"?
• Edward Scot: I... I beg your pardon?
• Harry: Drop the act, Gareth. I know you talked a naive well-wisher into sneaking you your wand, used the Imperius Curse to force your guard to set you free, and are attempting to escape using Polyjuice Potion.

And a little further down the article from that,

• Harry: As expected, "Edward Scot" transformed back into Gareth Greengrass as soon as his Polyjuice Potion wore off. I've done some digging since then. As it turns out, there is no wizard named Edward Scot. He's actually a persona Gareth created using Muggle Kensington Millbottom's appearance.

So, in summary, the Edward Scot page should indeed be merged into the Gareth Greengrass page, and a separate article created for the muggle Kensington Millbottom. I guess the Edward Scot infobox image could be used as the Kensington Millbottom infobox image, if there're no images anywhere of actual Kensington as himself? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Welp edit conflict, Kates came up with the same info as I was typing this. :P -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I've set up a page for Kensington, and put Edward's infobox image in Kensington's infobox. Edward's page should definitely be merged because it's the same person. Would you like to do it, or should I? - Kates39 (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll let you do it, I have zero confidence in my page merging abilities. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. - Kates39 (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Ravenclaw Tower Staircase

Ravenclaw Tower staircase is a redirect page that somebody redirected to "Ravenclaw Tower Staircase."

However, Ravenclaw Tower Staircase has not been named as such by any source to my knowledge.

I suggest that the redirect page is removed and that the "Staircase" is moved and redirected to "staircase".

Donut4 (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Done -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  14:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Blue salamander and Frost Salamander

This is an old one that has not been resolved or even discussed. The "blue salamander", as passingly mentioned by Hermione after Harry's Glacius challenge in the PC version of the Prisoner of Azkaban video game, is never even called such by her, as she simply asks if the salamanders Harry encountered were red (fire-dwelling) or blue; blue coloured salamanders are confirmed to be Frost Salamanders, and there is no other information elsewhere which says that these two salamanders are separate species. RedWizard98 (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The Frost Salamander page even states that the home console version of the same game refers to the "salamanders" as "Frost Salamanders," so I think that provides further support for the merger. Logo8th (talk)

Okay, thanks for pointing this out. RedWizard98 (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Done - Kates39 (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

en:File:Music Box WU.png and en:File:MusicBoxWU.png

A very simple merging needed, both files are identical duplicates. RedWizard98 (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Bumping. RedWizard98 (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Done - Kates39 (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Dumbledores-army-the-dark-side-of-the-demob-lrg.png and File:Dumbledore's Army The Dark Side of the Demob1.png

Both files are identical images of Dumbledore's Army: The Dark Side of the Demob from old Pottermore. The first one is properly coloured, whereas the latter is unnaturally altered, however, the latter is also larger resolution. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Which one would you prefer to be the main picture if I merge them? The small one or the large one? - Kates39 (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Well Sammm's original one, the smaller image, is correctly coloured, so I'd say that one. RedWizard98 (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Done - Kates39 (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Unidentified temple and Magisterial Chamber of Ancient Wizardry

Said location has been named, conjectural article can be merged with the latter, or deleted, depending on what's deemed best. RedWizard98 (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

These two pages have been redirected to Eyrie, a name verified in Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore. - Kates39 (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

R (individual) and Peregrine

Hi, requesting some help here; I know I've been around for some time now, but I am genuinely uncertain of the exact desired method needed to merge articles together and turn one of them into a re-direct, as it needs to be done here. Thanks. RedWizard98 (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Tbh literally all you need to do is simply turn R (individual) into a redirect to Peregrine. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  00:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. RedWizard98 (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Lily1 Colorized.png and File:Lily1.png

The unnatural colouring of images from the franchise is typically rejected on this wiki on the grounds of it being artifical. It is the same file as File:Lily1.png but altered to appear more pink in colour. I suggest a merge. RedWizard98 (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  15:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:Images from LEGO Harry Potter: Years 1-4 and Category:Images from Lego Harry Potter: Years 1-4

These two categories refer to the same game and really should be merged together. Only difference is the capitalization interchangeably used "Lego" in lowercase, with "LEGO" in uppercase. Images from the game are split into two, with some at the lowercase-category and some at the capitalised category. The files should be housed in one category instead of split into two. That said, I"m more inclined for "LEGO". SeichanGrey (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Having duplicate categories for LEGO Harry Potter: Years 1-4 is rather bizarre and this should be fixed; the images from the latter should be moved into the aforementioned, since "LEGO" capitalised is correct. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Done - Kates39 (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Ship voyage to America and Unidentified ship

I too would favour a merging here, with the aforementioned being merged into the latter, as there is nothing on it that is different to the ship article. RedWizard98 (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I would also be in favour of it. These two articles do not really say anything different and could be detailed in a single page. - Kates39 (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Done - Peregino (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Harry Potter movies hbp promostills 06.jpg and File:Harry Potter movies hbp promostills 6.jpg

These two images are identical-but slightly smaller. SeichanGrey (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Done -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

File:HarryParvatiDance.jpg and File:HarryParvatiDance-1-.jpg

These two files are basically identical. SeichanGrey (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Done -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  18:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

File:HarryMurielDoge.jpg and File:HarryMurielDoge1.jpg

These two images are the same image but with different coloring. SeichanGrey (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Done -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  18:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

File:HP7A-TR2-025 458335s.jpg and File:HP7 deathly hallows part one harry hermione visit james and lily potters grave.jpg

Identical image. SeichanGrey (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Done - Merged into the 2nd one. MalchonC (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Chocolate and raspberry ice-cream with chopped nuts and Ice cream

Would have to entirely agree with a merge (or even deletion). This is in no way a specific brand/type of ice cream, just a combination of toppings. Plus, it is poorly titled to say the least. RedWizard98 (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of merging these pages. - Kates39 (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Done - Kates39 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Unidentified teacher and Arif Sikander

The BTS section notes Sikander's resemblance to one of the unidentified teachers in PS? Do you think that there is enough resemblance to merge the articles?Rodolphus (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

No I don't think the resemblance is enough. From what I see this is pure speculation. MalchonC (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see enough resemblance, too.Rodolphus (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the above, and I vote for the motion of merging the two articles, because we are not dealing with a passing resemblance here. In fact, I would go so far that the similarities between the 3D model of Arif Sikander and its flesh-and-blood counterpart from the film adaptation of the first book is even greater than that of Dumbledore's 3D model and Michael Gambon. "Pure speculation", I would argue, be more along the lines of suggesting that the colour of Sikander's socks depends on what day in the week it is, not noticing that these representations depict the same character in-universe. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, the evidence of the two being the same character is not concrete. We haven't been given a name of the professor in the Philosopher's Stone film, but Dumbledore is identified in both the game and Michael Gambon's portrayal, so these two cases are not even remotely comparable. MalchonC (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that recognizing the 3D model of Dumbledore as Dumbledore from pre-release trailers of HM was somehow invalid until we play the game and see his name pop up on screen? And if not, how is this any different? In both cases, we are talking about two animated 3D character models based off of the physical portrayal of a real life actor in costume, so it's absolutely comparable. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

No it's not, we know enough about Dumbledore's appearance and position at Hogwarts to know that the character from the trailers is Dumbledore, but we know almost nothing about the background character in the first film except that he has a moustache and goatee like Arif Sikander does, so whatever connection that can be drawn solely based on the vague similarities between the film character and the game model remains speculation. MalchonC (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Anti-witchcraft leaflets and Witches Live Among Us!

Starting this discussion from what I've read on the wiki, I would support merging these two articles together since they are about it seems entirely the same topic and they can thus be covered together in the same article for simplicity and good style. From what I know, I believe "Witches Live Among Us" is the only named leaflet distributed the NSPS so that is why I believe they should be merged, because this is one topic/thing in the universe that does not need to unnecessarily have two articles about. RedWizard98 (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

This has been a active topic for three months and Witches Live Among Us should definetelly be merged with Anti-witcraft leaflets as, there is way more leaflefs distributed by NSPS. Also the article for Anti-witchcraft leaflefs is for all the leaflefs and not just for one. Hopefully this can be merged soon! Cheers! ShawONWIKI (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This Witches Live Among Us! article should be merged with this one because this article has every pamphlet while the other one is just one leaflet. ShawONWIKI (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Bump! ShawONWIKI (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

You can do it yourself, you know. Feel free to move over any information from the Witches Live Among Us! page that you think the Anti-witchcraft leaflets page lacks, and then turn the Witches Live Among Us! page into a redirect. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  16:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Created redirect! ShawONWIKI (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I am severely late to the game, and I apologize for seemingly coming here only after the deed was done. This only came on my radar after I saw the large byte-size reduction (please excuse me; I have areas I focused on, and this just wasn't one of them). While I get that, yes "Witches Live Among Us!" definitely is one of the Anti-witchcraft leaflets (so hold your thestrals, no one is saying the statement is wrong), I don't really understand why these two had to be merged?

HARRY POTTER "DISTURBED AND DANGEROUS" was a part of campaign to discredit Albus Dumbledore and Harry Potter; I don't think there's an HPW article specifically for "Anti-Dumbledor-Potter newspaper articles", but MinaLima Design definitely created more props on the subject, thus having enough material (to be clear, I don't encourage an article creation about this), and in that situation, are you going to argue for the DISTURBED article to be merged?

This revision of Witches Live Among Us! looks fine, so what was the problem? The specific name ("Witches Live Among Us!") was also used in a headline in The New York Ghost articles#6 December 1926 Sunset Final Edition, it seemed notable enough. I don't see the point of having something that's distinctively named, clear history (albeit short, is beyond the point; there's shorter articles out there), to be forcefully merged into a conjectural article that's about the broader group of subject. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Either we keep it merged, or create individual articles for all the second salem leaflets, and honestly I don't see a need to do the latter. We could always create individual sections within anti-witchcraft leaflets titled after each leaflet, as a hub article. I feel like there's not really enough unique information about each individual leaflet for them to be separated into their own individual articles, it's just not necessary IMO. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  14:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I can see both arguments, but I do lean towards letting the leaflets have their own pages if we know enough about them, and to link a brief paragraph on the Anti-witchcraft leaflets page to the {{Main}} article. If not pursuing that, then I think a hub article like explained above would be good too. I don't feel too strongly one way or the other, because I think both concepts will work. - Kates39 (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts on this are, essentially, Kates39's. The only hiccough I would anticipate about splitting anti-witchcraft leaflets into separate articles for each leaflet is that the untitled ones would be awkward to find article names for. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Regrowing hair spell → Hair-regrowing spells

A merge template has been in both of these pages for some time (since November 2020):

• Regrowing hair spell
• Hair-regrowing spells

I'll renew the topic by saying that it makes most sense for 'Regrowing hair spell' to be redirected to 'Hair-regrowing spells' as the latter has an actual source backing up its name. 'Regrowing hair spell', on the other hand, is a conjecture. Donut4 (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Third-floor corridor and Gunhilda of Gorsemoor Corridor

I oppose the merge because the books don't say the third-floor only has one corridor. They suggest it has at least two corridors. In Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Dumbledore says "the third-floor corridor on the right-hand" was out-of-bounds. He doesn't just say the third-floor itself, or anything about the left-hand side. Then later on, Harry and co. headed to the third floor and then run through a door into the "forbidden corridor on the third floor". So it looks to me like the third floor itself wasn't out-of-bounds, it was just of one the corridors on it. Gunhilda's corridor could be a separate one. - Kates39 (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The Lexicon: An Unauthorized Guide to Harry Potter Fiction and Related Materials

This article should not be merged to Harry Potter Lexicon since the book may have a different organisation from the web pages. Its chapters, date of publication, publishing house and even material not present in the page at that time (2009) could be there.LeFences ^Owlery 04:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

en:Category:PlayStation2 video games (real-world) and en:Category:PlayStation 2 video games (real-world)

Both categories are mistakenly identical and require merging. RedWizard98 (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Rookwood (disambiguation) and Sweeting (disambiguation)

I've put two merge templates on the following articles:

• Rookwood (disambiguation)
• Sweeting (disambiguation)

There are no links on the wiki that even link to these articles and the new pages for Rookwood family and Sweeting family meet the purposes of these disambiguations better. Castlemore (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I see you just created the two pages. It is a bit of a stretch to assume the individual members are family. Ao no, I opposed merger. SeichanGrey (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I created the pages because there is a precedent on the wiki to load people with the same surname into the same 'family'. For example, the Vane family suggests that Romilda Vane is related to random Muggle characters called Vane. Williams family does the same. No canon source suggests that "D. Williams" buried in the graveyard of Godric Hollow is related to "Benjy Williams" the Quidditch seeker. The wiki just does this for simplicity. Castlemore (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

"It is a bit of a stretch to assume the individual members are family"

Uhm... No? The population of the magical community is miniscule compared to the amount of Muggles in Britain. In book 4, Roberts notes how odd it was that everyone that had showed up on the campsite seemed to know each other, and that was after foreigners were popping up all over the place to attend the Quidditch World Cup in addition to native members of the spectators. And then we have Sirius' mention in book 5 of how all wizarding families are related in one way or another because there's so few of them left. Unless we are talking about two Muggle-borns or half-bloods with Muggle fathers who have one of those especially common surnames, like Jones, Smith, Taylor, Williams, etc, the magical community simply isn't big enough for there to be two people with the same surname without there being some kind of familial ties there. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

These are now both deleted. - Kates39 (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Candidates' Dinner and Attempted assassination of Vicência Santos

These events are the same, they are not separate events. The assassination attempt was simply a part of the dinner. I see no need for two pages on one single, and rather simple event. RedWizard98 (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that they are the same event, I think the latter should be merged into the former. MalchonC (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Bumping discussion. RedWizard98 (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I am uncertain why this has not been merged yet. Would it be acceptable if I were to blank the latter article and turn it into a re-direct for the aforementioned? RedWizard98 (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Article has been merged, with latter article turned into re-direct and appropriate addition of content to the aforementioned. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Qilin young.png and File:Qilin.png

Both files are basically the same. Please merge them together. SeichanGrey (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

They are very similar, but not quite identical. I don't think they require merging; lots of images similar to each other exist on the wiki. RedWizard98 (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Candidates' Dinner and Absolution of Gellert Grindelwald's crimes

Merging is largely required here, the aforementioned contains all the information contained in the latter and there is really no point having such a small article on information contained fully elsewhere. Otherwise the wiki will be flooded with unnecessary pages. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I can understand a push for merger. The two events occur back to back in the same place. SeichanGrey (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like to advise against the merger of these two articles and instead propose a re-focusing of the latter one. While Anton Vogel used the candidate's dinner to set the stage for Grindelwald's candidacy, it's still its own separate event and tied to the election of the next Supreme Mugwump. The article about the absolution of Grindelwald, however, can instead shift focus to the background information behind the passing mention on the subject we can have on the former article. It can talk briefly about Grindelwald's growing legion of followers since Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, how the fall of the German Ministry of Magic when Vogel surrendered control of it to Grindelwald was a result of this when he became only a little more than a puppet, about - as Minerva informs Albus in Hog's Head - that Vogel has began to track down and arrest the Aurors that witnessed Grindelwald's murder of Leta Lestrange - and how this was tied into into Grindelwald's plan to cheat in the election. Perhaps this could be the springboard for an expansion of Grindelwald's election campaign/the 1932 campaign as well? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Are there any other opinions on this? Could the article be repurposed or can this be covered on a single page since they happened at a single event? - Kates39 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This can be sufficiently covered on one single page, since they were both part of one event, the dinner. I will merge the two if you support such a merger. RedWizard98 (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I've long advocated for a merger. Should this indeed go ahead? RedWizard98 (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Weasley family in Egypt POAF.png and File:The Weasley Family at Egypt.jpg

Nearly the same identical image. SeichanGrey (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Morag MacDougal and Isobel MacDougal

To quote a old message on both of their talk pages, "Every other student from either the Harry Potter and Me note page or "The Original Forty" with the same surname as a student in the final novels is assumed to be the same character as their finalized counterparts." It is clear in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone that there is no Isobel to be sorted before Morag MacDougal, and all evidence points to them being the same person.

I don't see why there are still two separate articles, but since it has been that way for such a long time, I wanted to get a confirmation before just merging them. - Тамми (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Tumblr mvas81bRB31spmw8po1 250.gif and File:Brackium Emendo.gif

Aforementioned file is largely a duplicate of the latter, albeit it is lower quality, slightly shorter and has subtitles. RedWizard98 (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

This is also discussed here where new input would be appreciated. - Kates39 (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Harry Potter Funko Pop Advent Calendar 2018 and POP!

The aforementioned is simply an individual Funko POP! release, so I do not believes it requires a minor article on the wiki, and would be better off merged with the POP! article. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The item listed looks like merchandise. Merchandise could go into one big page instead of listing them individually; Otherwise, the site would be filled with hundreds of merchandise pages, and possibly outnumber the non-merchandise items. SeichanGrey (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Auror exams

Just to be clear: The recruitment programme is to Aurors what classes are to Hogwarts students, and the Auror exams is to Aurors what Hogwarts exams are to Hogwarts students, to merge to related but categorically distinct things - one being the gradual validation process of potential Auror applicants as a whole, and the exams being the test by which the applicants are validated - is ridiculous. We might as well merge Theory of Charms and Charms (class) while we're at it. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Another super unnecessary page I have to say, again, of no encyclopaedic value (all information can be found on other pages). Not sure what the extreme fascination with Auror training is either. I hope a majority decision will also reign above the views of say, one lone voice. RedWizard98 (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I love how every time my username is attached to an edit of any kind, it just magically sucks, and there's these really flimsy yet somehow convoluted excuses for why they're supposed to suck, but they're always undercut by the fact that the real motivation for objecting is personal dislike and bias against me. xD

And it's not an "extreme fascination" with Auror training, it's just that you seem content to ignore canon by arbitrarily acting as though Auror training somehow magically don't apply to any and all Aurors from Theseus backwards in time, while I, meanwhile, who care what canon and Rowling says, don't.

Anyway: I will take your bate once again, because somebody has to: How is this article in any way, shape or form any less "encyclopaedically valuable" than let's say the Ministry Duellist Certification exam? Or, for that matter, since we're talking about a part of the Auror recruitment programme here, any of the other parts of the Auror training programme on Category:Auror training? Surely, you do realize that a course and an exam is not the same thing, eh? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't see why the Auror exams can't have a separate page, even if they're something that the recruitment programme covers. MalchonC (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, MalchonC. After all, we've got pages on other things the programme covers, why should this be any different? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

These two pages are telling us the exact same thing. They even open with the same quote. Auror recruitment programme is all about the ways they are tested in order to pass their training. So what does Auror exams provide that is particularly unique? It is just echoing the same thing. When determining notability, it is important to look at what pages provide individually and whether it needs multiple pages or if just the one is adequate coverage. When I read these two pages, I'm reading the same thing twice. - Kates39 (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

That's categorically false: One page is telling you of the Auror recruitment programme itself, the other is telling you about the tests that the recruits has to get a passing mark on in order to complete the programme successfully. The fact that there's a superficial overlap of information is just trivially true; just like how the Levitation Charm is mentioned as part of both the Charms curriculum and in the exam. Alternatively, we could just remove the history section and have it just be a short article on the exams on their own, separate portion of the programme, just like other portions. How about now? That should be problem fixed, I think? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not false, it's true, what you have written is a pointless duplicate that serves no educative purpose. It is a very poor use of an encyclopaedia, and that's being polite. I think if only one objects above three then a consensus is reached (sorry). RedWizard98 (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

1. RW... How is making an article that covers something that's never been covered by the wiki before, yet which is indisputably canon and indisputably separate from other things a "duplicate" of (an)other article(s)? You do realize that I didn't copy-and-paste the content of another article and paste it into a new article with a different name?
2. You're many things in your interactions with me, mate, but polite isn't one of them.
3. A consensus is a problem-solving tool to deal with discrepancies in canon or to determine the best course of action on a technical issue; it's not to be abused by you to try and force through your arbitrary nonsense through fallacious appeals to majority. Stop wasting my and everyone else's time with this rubbish. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

A consensus is achieved when people make a majority decision over one. I am not the one wasting time publishing duplicate pages that virtually no else wants and demanding they stay. RedWizard98 (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You need to learn the difference between majority decision and majority opinion, then. Anyway, in case you didn't notice, I did actually go through the trouble of accommodating the nay-sayers by erasing a whole section of the article to remove the "duplicate" (actually overlapping) information from the article to make it solely about how, in addition to courses, like "Concealment and Disguise" and "Stealth and Tracking", the passing of exams was also its own, separate part of the recruitment programme, which is canon yet never been addressed before, and you still call it a "duplicate", somehow. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Multiple images for merging

Hello, I am nominating the following files to be merged.

• File:Harryandginny.jpg and File:JeenyHerry.PNG
  • These largely the same, although they are different file formats. The 2nd one can be deleted imho.

Done - 1st image deleted (since it has out-of-universe elements) and turned into redirect. MalchonC (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Image 1, Image 2 and Image 3
  • These images are identical.

Done - Merged into the 1st one. MalchonC (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• File:InvisibilityCloak-TCG.jpg and File:InvisibilityCloak.jpg
  • largely identical images. SeichanGrey (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Done - Merged into the 2nd one. MalchonC (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• File:Mollyharry1996.jpg and file:Molly greeting harry.png
  • are nearly identical.

Not sure what to do, the 1st one has better quality, but also seems to have the lighting manually adjusted. MalchonC (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• image 1, Image 2, Image 3,

Done - Merged into the 3rd one. MalchonC (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• File:Platform 9 and 3-4.png and File:Platform 9 and 3-4.jpg

Done - 2nd one deleted and turned into redirect since the file types don't match. MalchonC (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Image 1 with Image 2

Done - Merged into the 1st one. MalchonC (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Image 1 and image 2
  • Identical image but different sizes.

Done - Merged into the 2nd one. MalchonC (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Image 1 and Image 2
  • identical

Not done - One depicts the whole card while the other only depicts the in-universe portion, should be kept as different images. MalchonC (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• file:SnapeMcGonagall duel.jpg, File:McGonagall vs Snape.jpg, and File:McGonagallvsSnape.jpg, are nearly identical.

Done - Merged into the 1st one. I'm not sure if the current version on top was actually the one that the 1st image hosted before merge, since I lost track of which was which after merge (oops, will be careful next time), but I picked the version with the highest quality. MalchonC (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• File:Potter family.png or file:Potter family 2 - Harry as baby.gif
  • This one Can't be merged because different format, but if they were, it would be merged.

Done - 1st one deleted and turned into redirect. MalchonC (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Image 1, Image 2, and Image 3

Identical. Several images for merging. SeichanGrey (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Partially Done - 3rd one merged into 2nd one, but 1st one kept due to being used on several pages and referred to under specific contexts, which merging would break. MalchonC (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Image 1 and Image 2

• • Virtually identical. SeichanGrey (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Done -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  13:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Crown of Mneme and Dai Ryusaki's weapon

I would support a merger in question, since recent revelations in the game seem to show that the Crown of Mneme was Dai Ryusaki's defining achievement that was extremely dangerous and could be utilised as a weapon. It was also believed to have been made for evil, but was in fact made for good, but was just very dangerous. RedWizard98 (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Bump. RedWizard98 (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I shall merge the two together soon if there are no objections. RedWizard98 (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Stitches and Draughts

This is the same shop as The Haunted Hogsmeade Shop. However, in Hogwarts Legacy, the player is given three names to choose from once they gain ownership of it. Stitches and Draughts is one option. The other two are Vespers and Venum or Cladwell and Brewster (like in this video at 48:26). I've only watched gameplays where the player chooses Stitches and Draughts so I don't know what happens if they pick one of the others. However, I think Stitches and Draughts should be merged in The Haunted Hogsmeade Shop because that name is neutral. What do others think? - Kates39 (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

If they are definitely the same shop, then saying we should go for the neutral title is a statement of the obvious imo. Cheers -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  16:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Based on the information available, I would agree merging into The Haunted Hogsmeade Shop. The PC early access will be released in less than two hours though, so soon I'll have the chance to see what happens if I choose either of the other names. MalchonC (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for both of your input! The Haunted Hogsmeade Shop quest is only available to those playing with PlayStation 4 and 5 so those with PC (including me) won't be able to try picking a different name. However, I've just finally found another gameplay where the player picked Cladwell and Brewster instead. So that confirms the name is different depending on player choice. They are definitely the same shop. The Haunted Hogsmeade Shop is falsely sold to the player by Cassandra. They are told to open a chest in the back room. Upon entering the chest, they discover it is Fastidio's dungeon. They escape and legally gain ownership of the shop. Penny the house-elf then encourages them to give it a new name. I will merge these pages with the neutral name now. - Kates39 (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hector Weasley, Hector Jenkins

Earlier discussion on this subject: Talk:Hector Weasley#Status

It is quite clear at this point of Hogwarts Legacy's development that Hector Weasley does not exist in the game. The only source of his existence was a behind-the-scenes video by a YouTuber, XPectoGo, in November 2022 four months prior to the game's publication. I have gone through the trouble of finding this video as well as roughly the timestamp that he appears.

Indeed, Hector Weasley did not make it into the final game. His character, a participant at the Crossed Wands Dueling Club, appears to have been replaced by Hector Jenkins.

We have no verifiable source that specifically states "Hector Weasley was replaced by Hector Jenkins". We only have what we have: the fact he does not exist in the game. Various Twitter users have pointed this out.

So I propose two valid options for the Hector Weasley article:

1. A cut content tag and to treat the character as canonical (even if he doesn't appear in the game, he might still exist within Hogwarts as any number of the unidentified Gryffindor students).
2. Merge it into Hector Jenkins.

Castlemore (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I say option two makes more sense if the characters are pretty much identical. It's safe to assume they just changed the names. SharkDrone121 (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It's been a few days and I think it's tiem to come to a verdict. I've looked in every opportunity to find a single character named Hector Weasley throughout the game, and I've found none. It seems that the character is literally just Hector Jenkins. Considering the character itself was not cut from the game and only the name was changed, I feel like the decision is clear. The two pages should definitely just be merged. SharkDrone121 (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

---

I am going to take down the template and close this discussion because I think the best course of action is to treat him as a 'cut content' character who might possibly still exist. My reasons for this are:

1. Matilda is said to have "many nephews", indicating that there is more to the Weasley family than just Garreth Weasley.
2. Even if he was cut out of the game, he might still theoretically exist within the Harry Potter universe. There are hundreds of unidentified Gryffindor students; Hector could exist somewhere in the masses. Obviously I am talking about this in an in-universe perspective, not a real life one. He may not exist in the game, but can exist within the HP universe as he has been mentioned by the creators of the game. For another example of this precedent, see Trocar, whom is treated as a "possible professor", not proven to 'not exist', just not mentioned in the books.
3. Having cut content characters on the Wiki is overall informative and good for the culture of recording all information.

If someone wants to open up another discussion on Hector they may, but I hope that clears it up. Thanks. Castlemore (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Master

I believe that this page be rewritten, but I don't agree that it should be merged with "Professor", as that would've been misleading. I will concede that it might be equivalent to "Professor", but the two are not synonymous with each other, so they're still not the same thing. Just like how, in this article, Rowling specifies that rather than being an Auror in the proper sense of the word, "Webster Boot became what would now be known as an Auror for hire". In other words, he was the equivalent of an Auror, as he worked as a Dark wizard catcher, just like modern day Aurors do, but he wasn't actually an Auror, as the Auror Office wasn't a thing yet, he was a Bounty hunter who specialised in tracking and capturing Dark witches and wizards.

If Rowling makes said distinction, so should we. Now, as User:MrSiriusBlack has been kind enough to remind me more than once before, fact should not be used as Gospel for fiction when discussing canon, but there are, in this case, ample reason to make an exception. In real life, "Magister" is a title and/or a form of address of the Middle Ages that comes from the Latin word for "master", and it was given to a person in authority and/or to of scholarly distinction, including teachers. Now, as we can see from this image from The Art and Making of Hogwarts Legacy, (and please note that the following in no way is in conflict with previously established lore), said appellation was given to the four founders when they Hogwarts.

As language evolved, so did the title of office for those teaching at Hogwarts, going from "magister" to the English word "master". And that makes sense, because Rowling modelled Hogwarts after English boarding schools, after all, wherein the word "master", (which is the shortened form of "schoolmaster"), refers to a male school teacher; and where a school has more than one schoolmaster, a man in charge of the school is the headmaster. The female equivalent of "schoolmaster" is schoolmistress, which is used with all the same prefixes. But here's the thing: While (school)master/mistress might be the title of office, it's not a recognised form of address. This, however, is where the crux of this argument is reached: Professor is.

The title of "Professor" is also used when talking about Ministry researchers, like Saul Croaker and Phoebus Penrose, or independent scholars, like Bathilda Bagshot, so the title of Professor has certain in-universe connotations that are not entirely reconcilable with the role and function of being a schoolmaster per se, even though "Professor" is a recognized form of address for them. I would also like to direct your attention to Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Chapter 14 (Snape's Grudge), where an obvious and explicit reference to the title of office/style of address distinction is given black-on-white, where where Snape invokes his authority as a teacher at Hogwarts in the third book, saying that he is a "master of this school". It's a subtle difference, but there you have it. "Professor" and "Master" isn't the same thing, even if they're connected, and hence shouldn't be merged. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I can agree that "Master" is its own thing and shouldn't be merged into anything. I even remember in Hogwarts Legacy Professor Hecat calling her student Leander Prewett "Master Prewett", which I noted and thought it was strange, but if I didn't mishear then it should be enough to show that "Master" is far from being the equal of "Professor". MalchonC (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)'

Do you have a clip? It'd be an altogether different usage of the word in any case, mind you; but I'd still like to see it: "Master" was formerly used as a form of address for boys who had not yet entered society. By the late 19th century, etiquette dictated that men be addressed as Mister, and boys as Master. Have you seen Gotham? Alfred Pennyworth address young Bruce Wayne as "Master Bruce"/"Master Wayne" - in that context, it's just a courtesy thing, and completely detached from the designation that the article should be covering. (Note that when Snape calls himself "master of this school", it's not capitalised", so the article should start with "A schoolmaster or schoolmistress, sometimes shortened to "master or mistress", ...". WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Funny. This master-being-short-for-schoolmaster thing is uncannily similar to my argument about head being short for headteacher, which was shot down. Hmm. :P

Anyway I'm not reopening that; on this subject, well I'm not sure. If the article is supposed to be about schoolmasters, then it is a duplicate of Professor and should be merged, with some mention made in the Professor article of an early name for the role at Hogwarts being Mægisteras, which is what it actually says in that AMHL map image. It is also worth noting that magister (if that is what mægisteras is supposed to be; it probably is, though googling 'mægisteras' returns no results) also translates into English as 'teacher', further fuelling my view that professor and master is the same thing in this case.

If, however, the Master page is expanded to cover other uses like Master Prewett, it could maybe stay, though that said, we do not have pages for other such titles, like Mr or Mrs or whatever, so I'm not actually sure there either. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  20:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That's an a, not an æ. So it's "magisteras", which is the Latin plural of "magister". To address your concern about it being a duplicate page, though, that's easily solved: We re-write the "Master" article to reflect how the schoolmaster title is used in both the magical and non-magical schools in the UK, we use Snape as an example of an identified "master of the school". I believe the right way to frame this article would be to put an emphasis on its relation to Hogwarts teachers, specifically: Hogwarts is modelled after British boarding schools, complete with a house system, prefects, schoolmasters, a headmaster, etc., so it makes sense for Hogwarts to have a distinction between the title of office and a form of address, but we don't know that other wizarding schools elsewhere in the world, who presumably wouldn't be modelled after boarding schools in the UK, employs the same frameworks. At Durmstrang and Beauxbatons, for instance, conceivably, "Professor" could be both the title of office and the form of address, contrasting Hogwarts, where it's just the latter.

We could move the "power and rights", "education" and "personal lives" sections over to the Master page, and then edit the Professor page to more specifically emphasise how "the title of Professor was given to members of the wizarding scientific and scholarly community engaged in education and research, including the teachers at Hogwarts", and then we link the word "teacher" to the Master page. The list of known Hogwarts professors can stay where it is, but the page conflates the idea of a "Hogwarts professor" - aka teacher/schoolmaster/mistress, and that of other scholars and/or researches, and it's a bit messy, not be honest, so now we can clear it up by separating the two. We can put an "official post" infobox and insert "Professor" into the "Style" field. (The Head of Hogwarts page should also, in my opinion, have one such infobox.) WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"That's an a, not an æ"

No, looking closely at the image, it is 100% an æ. I have now found a result on Google for mægister - it is Old English, rather than Latin, which makes a lot of sense given that we're talking about the year 990 here.

"We re-write the "Master" article to reflect how the schoolmaster title is used in both the magical and non-magical schools in the UK, we use Snape as an example of an identified "master of the school"."

That wouldn't "easily solve" anything, that would just make it even more of a duplicate, in ways I have already explained.

The masters of the school are the teachers, addressed verbally and in writing as Professor. There has never been a separate article for 'Teacher', so why would there suddenly be a separate article for 'Master/Schoolmaster' now? It is the same role. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  21:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

1. Still looks like an a to me, but you could be right.
2. How? I said that move information from one page to the other and refocus the "Professor" page focus less on Hogwarts teachers and more on the title in and of itself, not copy-and-paste it onto the "Master" one and then clicks "save changes".
3. Because there exists a distinction between the two canonically that hadn't been covered on the wiki before now? Do we really need more of a reason than that? We noticed something new in the oldest source material, so we add it to the wiki because that means we've documented more of canon than we had previously. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Meh. I think the "Professor" page is fine how it is. It has a section focussing on Hogwarts professors, that can be expanded to include information about this mastery-mægistery business, and has a section about the non-teaching academics that use the title. This is what the ability to give pages multiple sections like this is for, after all. Teacher redirects to Professor, there is absolutely no reason why Master can't. If Headmaster and Headteacher are the same thing, then so are Master and Teacher. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  22:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The ability to give pages multiple sections is to facilitate the pointless conflation of multiple different topics in one article? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not multiple different topics. That is quite obviously the whole point. And before you once again repeat the same argument that you are trying to make that "master is the role and professor is the title", quite frankly I don't care. Teachers at Hogwarts have always been referred to as Hogwarts Professors, Professors of Hogwarts, Professor of Transfiguration etc, never Master of Transfiguration, so it is clear to me that Professor is the name of the role in this case, with Master as an 'occasionally known as', which is precisely what the Professor article already said before the Master article was even created. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  23:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, regardless of how much or how little you care, the fact remains that a title of office and a style (form of address) is not the same thing, and pretending otherwise would be intellectually dishonest, and acknowledging yet ignoring it would be intellectually lazy. I make it a point to not be either of those things. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

[Edit conflict:] That map is written in (mock?-)Old English. Hence why the school is called "Hogwarts Leorning-Hús of Wicce-Cræft and Wiccedom". "Magister" (or variations of the term, there wasn't such a thing as a standard spelling back then) is Old English and is borrowed directly from Latin. It translates directly to "professor" or "teacher" ("magisteras", by the way, is not the Latin plural of "magister" — that's not even remotely close to how plurals work in Latin — but it is the Old English nominative/accusative plural).

In short, there is no discernible difference in meaning between "master" and "professor", and the two terms are used interchangeably in both canon and in common parlance.

As for the use of "master" as an honorific — it makes as much sense as having a separate article on the term "Mister". --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

All right, so it is indeed Old English and not Latin. Thanks for clearing that up. That does not, however, magically make "professor" and "master" the same thing, because while "magister" might be synonymous with "teacher", "professor" isn't. It's used as a form of address for masters/mistresses of Hogwarts, granted, but, as I noted further up, there's certain connotations to the title of "professor" that are not reconcilable with the role and function of being a schoolmaster per se; both in canon and in common parlance. They are two related, but distinct things, a form of address and a title of office are two different things. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Out of interest though, where did you get it from that it was "synonymous with professor"? I know it is, or perhaps I should say can be synonymous with "teacher", but the usage of "magister" predated the title of "Professor" quite a bit, which only appeared in the late 14th century. There'd be no "professors" in 990 AC. Moreover, I've checked three different dictionaries of Old English, and when you write "magister", what I get is "magister [] m (-es/-as) leader, chief, master, teacher [L: magister]". WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

From Collins English Dictionary:

• Teacher, noun: "a person whose occupation is teaching others, esp children"
• Master, noun: "(mainly British) a male teacher"
• Professor, noun: "the principal lecturer or teacher in a field of learning at a university or college; a holder of a university chair"

It's splitting hairs to say the terms are not virtually synonymous. They are not terms of art with any significantly differences in meaning. Meanwhile, here are three quick examples of the word "professor" being used as a synonym for "teacher" and not as a form of address (the second one is rather telling):

"There are nasty rumors going around; I for one don't believe the Muggle Studies professor at Hogwarts resigned."

— Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 6

"Following the resignation of the previous Muggle Studies teacher, Alecto Carrow will take over the post while her brother, Amycus, fills the position of Defence Against the Dark Arts professor."

— Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 12

"Mum! I can't give a professor love!"

— Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Epilogue

(Incidentally, "the word 'magister' predates 'professor'" is not an argument for keeping the two articles separate. We don't have separate articles on Blooders or Cuaditch.) --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

All that proves is that we noticed a distinction Harry didn't and/or forgot about because he was so accustomed to thinking of the teachers as professors since that's what he called them on a daily basis. However, while you might call it splitting hairs to distinguish the two, but Severus Snape - and by extension J. K. Rowling - seems to disagree with you. Directing your attention to Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Chapter 14 (Snape's Grudge), where a concrete example of the "title of office"/"style of address" distinction is explicitly given black-on-white: When Severus Snape invokes his authority as a teacher at Hogwarts in the third book, he says "Professor Severus Snape, master of this school, demand that you...". In other words, his authority as a teacher laid in his position as a (school)master of Hogwarts, not in the manner in which he as an occupant of that position was formally addressed by others, which was the word "professor"; and which was a scholarly designation he shared with other, non-employees at Hogwarts who had no authority to invoke there, because while they were professors, they were not a (school)masters or -mistresses of the school like he was. Snape makes a distinction between the two in a tier-one source, and that's good enough for me. Canon has established the existence of a distinction between the two, and I'd rather just run with it, if that's okay. The whole "Rowling's Word is Law" thing and all that. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Or, you know, Snape could have just opted for one of two synonymous terms. An actor can opt to refer to himself as a "thespian", but that doesn't make it any less of a synonym for "actor". --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, none of the given quotes are Harry's. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. If "(school)master" and "professor" had been synonymous, Snape could indeed have just opted for one of the two terms instead of both, whether it was "Severus Snape, master of this school, demands ...", or "I, Professor Severus Snape, demands...", but as it is, he didn't do that. What we got instead was two related, but distinct titles that illustration of the fact that canonically speaking, "schoolmaster/mistress" is the actual position one holds as a teacher at Hogwarts, and "Professor" is an academic honorific that they are afforded and style themselves with as members of the wider wizarding scholarly community, which they share with other non-teaching scholars. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Forgive the rest of us if we ask for a little more than your intuiting as a source for that distinction ever being made in canon. In the meantime, I'll reiterate that both terms remain synonymous with plain old "teacher". --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Training Grounds tower → West Tower

Good day. I apologise in advance for how roundabout this may seem; the overlap of canon tiers is quite extraordinary here. So.

Abstract

1. The Training Grounds tower is a conjecture (i.e., we applied this name to it because we didn't know of any other canonical name).
2. The West Tower has a strange fusion of locations. The books say that it is a part of the main castle, yet the films present it as a detached tower within the grounds, and Hogwarts Legacy situates it in the location of the Training Grounds tower within the main castle.

The overlap
Here, I observe that Hogwarts Legacy is more accurate to the book than the film here, so we should understand the Training Grounds tower to be the West Tower and remove the image of the film-Owlery from the infobox. An image of the Training Grounds tower should be in the infobox of the 'West Tower' article and the pages should be merged.

I also feel it is extremely misleading to have the prime image of the West Tower be a detached tower, considering this is not the case in the books.

For past precedent, I point to the infobox image discussion of Phineas Nigellus Black, where we ruled that Hogwarts Legacy being a game may be outranked by the films in canon, but the game was more accurate to the book; hence, we preferred the game's portrayal of Black.

I welcome all insight into the Training Grounds tower → West Tower merge. Thanks. Castlemore (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: Illustrated Edition's Marauder's Map (p. 149) has an illustrated image of the West Tower as part of the castle. I do not know if that is important knowledge for this discussion, but I felt it was important to say in case it was the highest possible canon tier for the infobox image. Castlemore (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

For visual reference, the tower within the direct center of this image, which connects to the Bell Towers via a building, is the West Tower in Hogwarts Legacy, which is the same position as the Training Grounds tower in all other games. Castlemore (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This is going to be a thorny one to untangle unfortunately. For starters, we'll need to clarify some of the existing information (and pending questions on the talk pages). Where does the name Training Grounds tower come from? Is it conjectural? How do the films/video games tell us that the Library, Second-floor corridor, and Charms class are all in this tower (i.e which source is tied to which claim)? The infobox image appears to be referring to the tower to the far right, not the central tower that is the part of the twin Bell Towers? Which are the "all other games" that you are saying map this West "Bell" Tower to the Training Grounds tower?

this image show how the three towers line up in the later films that HL also used. We have a cropped version on Training Grounds. If there are other images from the films and games of the Bell Towers side of Hogwarts that would help (we don't seem to have an image category for just this area currently and Category:Images_of_the_Training_Grounds generally don't have enough of the building to help). Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Image 1

I have gone through the page's history. After a few poor quality versions, see this revision which used this image (right; Image 1). This image is from GOF (film) & it is one of the earlier versions of the tower before it became the square-shaped cuboid it is today. This version states, "It's very likely that the Hogwarts Library is in that building because the courtyard is beside it." Okay, so at this point it's "very likely" that the Library is in the tower - I will see if this is ever actually definitively proven.

Notably, none of the earlier versions used the Conjecture template despite switching the name various times ("Library Tower" became "Training Grounds tower"). I think this is because the article was really finalised before the Conjecture template was made (2010ish).

A few minutes later, I can confirm that no, it was not definitively proven that the Library is in this tower, because it was an unregistered user who changed it from "very likely located" to "are located" -- see this edit. And I guess we just accepted that into our collective consciousness and never challenged it. This was 2010 after all, I suppose.

And speaking of "collective consciousnesses", having the picture of the West Tower be the Owlery from the movies is also not appropriate with our existing system of canon tiers. So we should be accepting the West Tower as a tower within the castle (of which it is named to be the otherwise conjectural Training Grounds tower), and maybe renegotiating the film-Owlery with some sort of separate Owlery Tower page (which it is named as in the games). Castlemore (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah... there are a variety of claims that all got smooshed together to it makes it hard to untangle. I'll run through HL, OOTP|G, Marauder's map from MinaLima and POA|IE, HP|LEGOY1 & 2, and anything that has both names and placement so we can start to sort things out. While the BTS section for Training Grounds tower notes how this area has changed, we might also want to grab relevant screen shots to document these changes. Also, I agree that I think the book notion of the West Tower containing the owlery was used to say that the Owlery Tower and West Tower were synonymous with just the placement differing in the films. Oh the tangled web we weave :) Will report back with findings as I go. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

What's this tower? It seems more like the West Tower from the films? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  21:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

That is what we are discussing. Basically, the films have a whole tower for the Owlery, so the Wiki decided to use that to represent the West Tower. But in the books, the West Tower is a main part of the Castle. So what I am proposing is that we use this tower for the West Tower and create a separate article for 'Owlery Tower'. Castlemore (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Does the game identify the tower I circled? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  22:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Just was checking in on this - Hogwarts Legacy identifies that tower as the Owlery, like the films. (funnily enough I also found there the last 3 Field Guide pages I needed to 100% the game so most fortunate timing on this discussion :) The problem arises in that the books place the Owlery as attached to the castle and in the West Tower:

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 15 (Beauxbatons and Durmstrang) - "He then climbed out of the portrait hole, up through the silent castle (held up only briefly by Peeves, who tried to overturn a large vase on him halfway along the fourth-floor corridor), finally arriving at the Owlery, which was situated at the top of West Tower."

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Chapter 21 (Hermione's Secret) - "“Now, pay attention,” said Dumbledore, speaking very low, and very clearly. “Sirius is locked in Professor Flitwick’s office on the seventh floor. Thirteenth window from the right of the West Tower."

There are some other book mentions of the Owlery that all seem to be walking in the castle while heading there. So we're left trying to reconcile canonically what is the "Owlery" and what is the "West Tower" (and what is the "Owlery Tower" if it is different - Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 14 (Percy and Padfoot) - "Harry glanced over to his right as they approached the Quidditch pitch, to where the trees of the Forbidden Forest were swaying darkly. Nothing flew out of them; the sky was empty but for a few distant owls fluttering around the Owlery Tower.")

I agree that this is probably moving towards a separation of content and not a merge, and then some BTS notes about the conflicts that are possibly explained by changes throughout the years. Like I said, all we can do is gather up the information and then parse it out as needed. There doesn't currently appear to be a single definitive solution that reconciles everything. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Late update but just signifying the closure of this discussion: I have decided to put the West Tower infobox image as a book canon image (explanation in Talk:West Tower), specified all the overlaps in the BTS sections of the appropriate pages (Training Grounds tower and West Tower) and stated that as every form of media has its own interpretation of what the West Tower is, there is no clear answer. I think that this is the best course of action but if anyone wishes to resurrect this topic they may (though quite frankly nobody has had any problem with the change for months so I would be surprised). Thank you and I personally consider this discussion to be sorted. Castlemore (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Ghost.png and File:Ghost-pottermore.png

The aforementioned is a duplicate of the more widely used latter. RedWizard98 (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Done -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  00:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Gili Bar-Hillel.jpg and File:Gili Bar-Hillel2.jpg

The wiki probably does not need more than one image of a single translator, and I would say the latter image is of a superior quality. RedWizard98 (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Done - Kates39 (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Ship voyage to America and Unidentified ship

I agree that nothing new is covered in the aforementioned article, and the latter covers the ship and its voyage in full. RedWizard98 (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Done - Peregino (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:Victims of the Dementor's Kiss and Category:Dementor victims

Basically I am saying the aforementioned seems quite a bit unnecessary as its parent category largely covers what happened to him (Crouch), and it has only one page in it, making it an extremely minor category. I would recommend merging the two or simply deleting the aforementioned and move back Bartemius Crouch Junior into the original parent category. RedWizard98 (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I am asking others to discuss this. RedWizard98 (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Done per lack of discussion, and answer is fairly obvious. No point having a category of only a single child when 'Dementor victims' fits the meaning well enough as it is. Castlemore (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Class 104

I am confused why this is tagged for a merge with Temporary Defence Against the Dark Arts classroom. These two pages don't have the same info, and are in different parts of Hogwarts Castle. How are they same room? - Kates39 (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Not done - found no evidence these are the same room. - Kates39 (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Betrayal.png and File:Silver Hand Betrayal.png

Both images are identical. RedWizard98 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  09:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Constance's Lament 2.webp and File:Constance's Lament Part 2.png

Both the identical file, but the latter is full resolution. RedWizard98 (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Done -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  15:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Goblin Rebellion of 1752 and 18th century goblin rebellion

Would anybody be opposed to me merging these pages? Castlemore (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

These appear to be identical, so yes, please merge them. RedWizard98 (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, I will go ahead with the merge now since nobody else has opposed. For edit note/future reference, the exact reason I am merging them is because there is only one stated goblin rebellion to have happened in the 18th century, and as games are an equal tier of canon, it would appear that "Goblin Rebellion of 1752" is therefore a more recent/updated name for the "18th century goblin rebellion". Castlemore (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Newton Scamander's Nundu and Nundu

I am proposing this be merged with the hub Nundu article. That hub article has always covered the unnamed, background minor Nundu owned by Newt in the first film, and it doesn't actually have any individual storyline in the plot, unlike some of his other beasts. Magical beasts should only have individual articles if they have individual notable information known about them (gender, name, etc.) or a notable storyline, which this lacks. Plus, I have a sinking feeling this was made to increase someone's edit count, as opposed to making something truly necessary. RedWizard98 (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Bump, I propose we do this. This article has no unique information. If nobody objects, I shall do it. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no Harry Potter Wiki:Notability guidelines issue here - aligns with many current articles such as Rosmerta's dog, Potters' cat, etc. so restoring. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Trolls in the Forbidden Forest and Forest troll

The first one is based on a very minor mention at best, and we know that forest trolls inhabit the forest, as seen in the video game adaptation of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (PS1 version). There's no evidence to say these subjects are different. RedWizard98 (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems this one can be merged into the Forest troll page. SeichanGrey (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be merged with Forest troll, as there is no reliable evidence that proves these trolls are forest trolls. Or if anyone find the proof, please tell me. Thank you very much. Peregino (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

But you also have zero evidence to say these are not forest trolls. Again not everything needs a separate article. A forest troll by nature is one that inhabits a forest (unless its breed is stated otherwise as with some Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery trolls), so that is why we consider the trolls from the second PS1 game to be forest trolls. This is now an article with several redirects that didn't need to be created in the first place if other materials were consulted properly beforehand. RedWizard98 (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the article could be kept without being merged with Forest troll, just like Forbidden Forest wolf pack could have its own page without being merged with wolf or werewolf. Peregino (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

But forest trolls in the forest are already covered in the article, and it's a very minor mention at best. The hub article works. RedWizard98 (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You can't assume they are Forest Trolls and then require others to disprove this assumption, anymore than someone should expect you to disprove they are River trolls (which also could be found in the Forbidden Forest according to Hogwarts Legacy). As noted above, we have plenty of minor individuals or groups separated out from their main topic article such as Hogwarts Hippogriff herd, Forbidden Forest Acromantula colony, Rosmerta's cat, etc... Trolls in the Forbidden Forest is inline with all these current practices. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Not done - Peregino (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:Businesses and Category:Companies

There is a hell of a lot of stuff in this category left completely ignored. I don't think that's okay to be honest. And in this case, the merging tag is correct, a business and a company are the same thing. I also don't think it really matters which category name we keep and which becomes a redirect. RedWizard98 (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the category descriptions say they are different things but this is plainly wrong. Castlemore (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Should the merger be completed? RedWizard98 (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

If there was a merger, which name would be used? For example the popcorn stall at Hogwarts is a small business, but it's definitely not really a "company". RedWizard98 (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Work started. I will be using Businesses since we tend to describe for-profit organisations as businesses, but also because it was higher in the tree hierarchy. Also, yes, I agree with you wrt popcorn stall. Castlemore (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

OK. This has been carried out. I would have done it slowly to avoid flooding RC but I figured today has actually been a slow day for wiki editing so I did it now. Done Castlemore (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Unidentified green spell and Killing Curse

I would like to hear input from others regarding this, as ShawONWIKI and myself believe this page to be redundant. Both spells are green and have the effect of killing. The wiki, quite frankly, does not need more "unidentified spells" from the FB series; if it's obvious that this is the iconic Killing Curse then it should be classed as such. Castlemore (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I imagine that the green spell seen in the film was probably an attempt by the filmmakers to imply the Killing Curse, however, the description in the screenplay is "firing spells, flaying the mother Qilin's hide", and given that the Killing Curse is said to cause no visible physical injuries to the victim, it is my belief that the spells used to kill the mother Qilin cannot canonically be considered to be Killing Curses. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it contradicts what canon tells us about the Killing Curse, so I don't think I would agree to a merge. MalchonC (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This canonically cannot be the Killing Curse for a number of reasons which are explained above, regardless of what individuals may think. Qilins have not been said to have a resistance or immunity to the Killing Curse (it is known to kill everything aside from phoenixes, which are immortal, and cannot be blocked), despite ShawONWIKI's very speculative assumptions that they do. The screenplay is also higher canon than the film and that makes it clear they are unnamed generic offensive spells. The film and screenplay in my view do an extremely poor job of explaining the magic throughout, but I think we should scrutinise it by what we already know to be true. RedWizard98 (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Not done, the effects of both spells are described differently and so they cannot be considered the same unless future details are given about Qilins to explain this. - Kates39 (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Spanish Eight Part Course Disc Four

This should definitely be merged with Spanish Eight Part Course, since an individual disc which is part of a course (itself an extremely minor topic that's only mentioned in an in-universe Daily Express from the films) is hardly notable and worthy of a separate article. RedWizard98 (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree, Disc Four just need to be added as part of the Course article.  Silver  Discusión  10:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Done - Kates39 (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Quidditch matches and Category:Quidditch competitions

Match and competition are the same thing. - Peregino (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No they patently aren't. Matches are the individual games, whereas competitions are the tournaments containing multiple matches. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  11:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Not done, these are two different things like explained above. - Kates39 (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Serpent (instrument) and Ernie Lark's snake-shaped musical instrument

The latter should be merged entirely into the aforementioned, it would not be practical having two articles on a minor, identical subject. RedWizard98 (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Done Alas, I didn't even know that the latter was an existing page when I created "Serpent (instrument)", otherwise I would have redirected it anyway. I didn't know about the Ernie Lark character, but it also doesn't help that the instrument was an orphaned page (it wasn't linked on the Ernie Lark page or to any other page in any way). Castlemore (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

1913 Defence Against the Dark Arts Boggart and Fifth year Defence Against the Dark Arts exam Boggart into Boggart in the Wardrobe

I'd like to get other opinions on the necessity of these two pages. Considering Boggarts are amortal beings, it makes little sense to assume that they frequently change this exact wardrobe out with a different one every few decades. Additionally, we have added a Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery appearance to the Boggart in the Wardrobe and assumed it was the same individual Boggart, so why not do the same here too? Castlemore (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

You recently placed {{Merge}} on these two articles for this reason: "since the wardrobe is identical to the one in the films and since boggarts are amortal, it would make more sense that it’s the same one, as opposed to switching it out for a new boggart". And as I don't agree with merging, I'm here.

No canonical source has confirmed that these Boggarts and the Boggart in the Wardrobe are the same one. Sense should not be used to indicate that two things are/aren't the same thing. Thanks. - Peregino (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, there’s no explicit evidence that they’re all the same, but there’s also no evidence that they’re all different ones either. However, the Boggart from POA is specifically called “the Boggart in the Wardrobe”, and the wardrobe in question is depicted to be completely identical in HL, FB, and POA, which is very telling. I will also draw attention, again, to the fact that editors have put the HM appearance tag on ‘Boggart in the Wardrobe’, so it sets up a double standard to assume the HM Boggart is the BitW, but the others aren’t. Castlemore (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, the Boggart in the Wardrobe took up residence in the staff room, and the Boggart in HL can indeed be found in the staff room. And that exact same wardrobe is visible in FB. Castlemore (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There is an evidence that they are all different ones. This is what POA says about the Boggart in the Wardrobe: "This one moved in yesterday afternoon, and I asked the Headmaster if the staff would leave it to give my third-years some practice". This confirms that the Boggart wasn't in the wardrobe til 1993. Peregino (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There are individual articles for Boggarts but this possibly could be the same Boggart from the third book. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Peregino here based on Lupin's quote in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. "This one moved in yesterday afternoon" does prove that the same Boggart didn't inhabit the wardrobe for decades. The creatures themselves are obviously drawn to it, so "this one" is only the latest case. The one during Harry's third year couldn't have been there since 1913. These Boggarts could be merged by making "Boggart in the Wardrobe" something of a hub article for every known case which I quite like the idea of. However, they shouldn't be treated like they are the same Boggart. - Kates39 (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

So it is. My apologies Peregino, it's been a long time since I read the books and I was under the impression from HM being on the Boggart in the Wardrobe page that they were being treated as one boggart before. I will now remove the merge templates and also remove that appearance template from BoiW. Castlemore (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

No need for apologies; you're just sharing your thoughts. :) Peregino (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Flight to the British Ministry of Magic Headquarters and Battle of the Department of Mysteries

The latter is really just the background to the main event. I seriously question the usefulness of this article and the editing priorities in place here. If nobody objects, I will merge the two since it's entirely nothing new or educational. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

A merge would seem logical. The page is mostly just background and aftermath. Further detail on the flight could have been put onto the battle page instead of creating a separate flight page. Castlemore (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with a merge. The Battle of the Department of Mysteries page has sections for the background and aftermath of the event. There are articles recently that I would consider a "proliferation of articles on low-importance subjects" which is something the Harry Potter Wiki:Notability guidelines is designed to prevent. These two articles can adequately cover the subject on one page. - Kates39 (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Blind-worm and Blind-Worm

These two pages have the same title and may cover the same topic, so I figured it would make sense to start a merge discussion in case they are talking about the same topic. In Harry Potter: Wizards Unite, "Blind-Worms" are referenced as the legless burrowing reptiles that they are in reality. However, "Blind-worms" are also mentioned in the song Double Trouble in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film) through the potion ingredient known as Blind-worm's Sting, although actual blind-worms don't have a "sting." Given that the more realistic-sounding "Blind-Worms" are described in WU as being referenced in a "particular pop song lyric," showing a similar musical connection to that seen in the "Blind-worm" mention, I wasn't sure if these should be considered the same creature and the two articles should be merged or if they are two different creatures, one natural and one magical, that should be kept separate. Logo8th (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Merwyn Finwick and Mervyn Fenwick

Do we believe these two to the same individual? RedWizard98 (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Almost certainly. They have identical bios as well as near-identical names. This has been brought up before, though got forgotten in the mists of time, hopefully that doesn't happen again lol. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  13:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I do. Surely they can't be two different people with the same story/near identical name? - Kates39 (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I would support a merger given these two individuals are clearly not different people but the same, given identical biographies. The apparent typos on the lexicon should be acknowledged in a BTS section. RedWizard98 (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Go for it, there's clearly no opposition. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)