Harry Potter Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Harry Potter Wiki
Archive
File-manager
The talk page has the following archives:

Statue?[]

The PC version of the Chamber of Secrets video games depicts statues of Lockhart, however in non-canonical spell challenges. Would the category of "statues", meaning individuals depicted as statues, apply in this case? Theoretically speaking, there is nothing to say there were not sculptured statues made of Lockhart, likely at his own behest, given his extreme vanity, but the actual events in which these feature in the game are of course, not in any way canonical. RedWizard98 (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You'd probably need to explain more about the challenges, for example, do they take place in a common location (like the Great Hall) and the statues don't usually show up there except during challenges? If so then maybe it's non-canon, but if it's in another place and we don't normally get to see it, unless the place itself as a whole is non-canon, I don't see any reason why the statues cannot be canon. MalchonC (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Cursed Vaults mention[]

Firstly, the mention on Lockhart's page was not copied from Dirk Cresswell's, it is the other way around. Secondly; please stop mischaracterising my edits, nowhere in my edits is it even remotely suggested that Lockhart or Cresswell was connected to the vaults in any way, all it says is that the events of Jacob's meddling happened, and that they were present for them. Which they were. This is not the Harry Potter Lexicon, where articles are bare-bone and reducible to what little we know from the original books; it's called the biography section for a reason. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, the second was significantly altered because again it was very speculative, making unproven statements about him having only possibly gained gained knowledge about Dark Magic from the event (which he's currently not known to have had any involvement with) and then this having influenced his writings is not supported by Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery, the source material.
Secondly, it is generally polite practise on the wiki to respect the editorial notes of others and discuss them on talk pages (often with ones left regarding infobox images), instead of removing them in source texts. RedWizard98 (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
With regards to my messages here (not related to the discussion), for some reason my first message did not publish the exact time I published it, causing it not to show, and I responded my publishing a second message with different wording when I could not see it in the page history or source, however doing so somehow caused my first message to be published and for the second one to completely re-word it, however, the first message was not present in the source before I clicked publish for the second one; Fandom staff have been notified and will be looking this, in order to make sure on my behalf the talk page policy was not breached. RedWizard98 (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Point 1: And this is a prime example of why I keep asking you to read my edits before removing anything. First, you accuse me of asserting that Gildeory had some sort of connection to the Cursed Vaults, which the text didn't say, and now, you are accusing me of asserting that Gilderoy possibly gained knowledge about Dark Magic through the Cursed Vaults incident, which again, the text does not say.

What my edit actually states is that Lockhart suffered no lasting effects from the Cursed Vaults incident, which he doesn't, and that the negative publicity Jacob got for his meddeling with the vaults, Dark Magic and expulsion could have illustrated the truism that good publicity would follow if one became known for opposing Dark Magic. Which is true. Now, will you please stop reading stuff into my edits that isn't there?

Point 2: Your editorial note was irrelevant to my edit because it misconstrued the edit that the note referred to and made it sound like it said something it didn't, so whether or not you think it was polite or not doesn't really matter. Respectfully; if it is wrong, it is wrong.

Also, I don't think it is any cause for alarm. Sometimes the wiki is buggy, and an accident is an accident. :-) WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, adding back speculation without a proper talk page consensus, word for word, is largely disruptive editing; adding it back after no continuation of a talk page discussion probably in the hopes nobody will see or check it isn't how to edit on the wiki, nothing goes unchallenged or unquestioned on the wiki. If you want to add back this wording which talks too much about stuff not part of Lockhart's bio as well as unnecessary re-wording of the "Magical mastery" section there's no reason as to why you can't form a proper agreement first, is there now. Not to mention it's unproven when he learnt things like nonverbal spells or apparition, so again speculation claiming he gained after Hogwarts (hypothetically could have mastered them at any point), because I guess that also go unchallenged as well can't it? RedWizard98 (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
A consensus is also so much more than purely self-affirmation of one's own speculation, it's so much, much, much more than that on this wiki. Persistence about speculation also doesn't make it more credible. RedWizard98 (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Never mind the sheer level of mental gymnastics recquired to suppose that "we don't know! where Lockhart learned things that are on the cirriculum for Hogwarts students while knowing that not only was he a student at Hogwarts, he was a good one, negating any real reason to entertain the notion that he could hypothetically have learned it somewhere else, exactly what is the so-called "speculation" you have somehow gotten it into your head that I'm inserting into the article, RedWizard? I re-phrased a paragraph without changing it's overall meaning, and I re-emphasised a point made in Lockhart's bio on Wizarding World without adding anything that wasn't alluded to on the page already and confirmed by canon. What do you imagine the supposed problem actually is? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Gilderoy Lockhart's fans[]

I have a somewhat interesting idea for this article's categorisation. What if we were to add this category to this article, on the grounds of himself being his biggest fan because of his narcissism? RedWizard98 (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Flying ability[]

While we know he was a Seeker (or at least claimed he was, but it's never been proven to be untrue), it's interesting that in LEGO Harry Potter: Years 1-4, he cannot fly a broomstick properly. Perhaps this is proof he lost his flying abilities in adulthood. RedWizard98 (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Advertisement