By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to automatically produce your name and the current date. By the way, I hope you'll register an account with us - it's fast, free, easy, and will block the ads on article pages. Before attempting any major article rewrites please read the layout guide. If you have any questions, check out the policy and help pages (see here for editing help), add a question to the Community portal, view the forum or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
Hello. First of all, I would advise you not to swear or raise your tone (i.e. your recent edit summary at the "Gryffindor" article), as it goes against policy and might disturb or offend other users. Now, I've noticed you have been labeling several articles "non-canon" as they are not mentioned in Rowling's literary canon. According to our canon policy, basically everything from the Harry Potter licensees (in other words, the films, video games, theme park, etc.) can be considered canon unless specifically contradicted by a higher canon source (or, in this case, the books and Rowling herself). Although you do have a point when you say the books contradict the location of the films' Entrance Courtyard (as the books speak of the Entrance Hall opening to a lawn), they don't say anything about said courtyard being located somewhere else (who knows, another entryway?) and neither do they contradict the Viaduct. As for Bellatrix and the Battle of the Astronomy Tower, the accepted convention is that an omission is not a statement, and as the book does not specifically say she was not there we can go by the film per the canon policy (that's why we do not consider her to be atop the Astronomy Tower when Dumbledore died, the book lists all the persons there and she is not among them) -- 16:08, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
- I advise you not to, as that would constitute a breach of our policies and you might be subject to administrative action. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion on the canon policy, but it was subject to approval of the community and was voted upon (twice) accordingly. In the Entrance Courtyard matter, consider this: the films/video games say it is a paved cloister area at Hogwarts, located outside the Entrance Hall. However the books specifically say there is not a courtyard outside the Entrance Hall. So, in accordance with our canon policy, we have to disregard the one statement the books contradict. So, canon goes thus: the Entrance Courtyard is a paved cloister area at Hogwarts,
located outside the Entrance Hall. You see what I mean? The literary canon may contradict a characteristic of the courtyard, but it does not contradict its existance. You may not agree with it, but it is the way the canon policy goes. As for Bellatrix: the wiki does not state Bellatrix taunted Dumbledore, casted the Dark Mark nor burnt Hagrid's hut down, as the books specifically say she did not. However, the books are silent when it comes to her destruction of the Great Hall's windows, so that's the only thing we're attributing to her here (as that's the only thing she does in the film that it's not contradicted by the book). And no, the Killing Curse cannot be blue; it can be cyan which is a shade of green. As for the Lego video games, exactly where did you read on this wiki that Hogwarts is made of plastic? -- 19:16, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if that sounded as a threat, but I'm just trying to safeguard the nice atmosphere here. That's your opinion, but this is how the policy goes so I don't really have nothing more to say, I'd be repeating myself. As for Bellatrix, Harry might not have noticed her, we don't know, or if she did, she might have simply been not mentioned by the narrator (bear in mind that the narrator is not Harry, it is a third-person limited narrator, not a first-person narrator). PS: Do sign your edits in talk pages by adding four tildes (~~~~) after your message -- 20:31, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
- If you disagree with the current canon policy or the ways it is implemented, you are free to propose changes and discuss specific points of contention. There are talk pages, forums, and blogs available for all of this. However, taking it upon yourself to make those changes just because you have a different opinion is not acceptable. Edit warring is only counterproductive.
- FYI, Administrators have a short list of reasons they can give for blocking a user, and "Gaming the system to prove a point" is one of those reasons. Your edits on the Bellatrix Lestrange article put you extremely close to this. - Nick O'Demus 12:57, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
- She was among the group of Death Eaters who saw Rubeus Hagrid's hut being set on fire by Thorfinn Rowle. Apparently, she decided he didn't do a good enough job, and restored the hut, only to burnt it down a second time herself, before fleeing the school grounds, but not before cursing Harry, although Harry didn't see her.
- This is "gaming the system to prove a point". I am already aware of your disagreement with Seth Cooper, and I don't see a need to repeat everything he said. We try to incorporate as many aspects of the various Harry Potter media as possible. Is it a perfect system? No. Are there grey areas? Absolutely, but there will always be. We do our best with what we have to work with.
- For the record, I happen to agree with you on some points, such as God not being article-worthy for this wiki, and Bellatrix being at the Astronomy Tower is non-canon. But you're not going about it the right way. If you're not happy with the way the current policy is implemented, start a discussion on the talk pages, blogs, or forums, and explain your position. If you can manage to get enough support from the rest of the community, then changes can be made to the policy. - Nick O'Demus 13:41, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
- I will gladly. Discussion is, and I think you'll agree with me, the first step to progress. In that matter, the book takes precedence and the location where HRH went was, indeed, Tottenham Court Road. I think you're getting thing wrong here; while, as Nick said above, there are grey areas, we must look at facts with a fair ammount of common sense. In the books, Umbridge sacked Trelawney in the Entrance Hall. In the film, Umbridge sacked her in the Entrance Courtyard. We would never list these two events as different events, as all the filmmakers are doing is an interpretation of the book. This explains why we don't consider the trio to have Apparated within Shaftesbury Avenue in the evening of 1 August, 1997 (and, yes, why we don't ever claim Bellatrix repaired Hagrid's Hut after being set on fire by Rowle to set it ablaze again). And I'd advise you not to game the system to prove a point before we have reached somewhere with this disussion anymore, as this is potentially detrimental to the wiki's quality and may be interpreted by other administrators as a form of vandalism. Do remember to sign your edits in talk pages by adding four tildes (~~~~) after your message. Yours. -- 15:38, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
- I don't mind it at all. Her presence atop the Astronomy Tower can be ruled out on account of two reasons: the first, is that we are talking of a scene that takes place in a relatively small and closed space, making it unlikely other characters might be there (as opposed, for instance, to an event like the Battle of Hogwarts, with a lot of unidentified characters and spanning the entire lenght of the Hogwarts complex); the second, the book specifies the number of people there ("But suddenly footsteps were thundering up the stairs and a second later Malfoy was buffeted out of the way as four people in black robes burst through the door on to the ramparts.") and their names. Given this, we must rule out completely her presence there. -- 16:34, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
- No harm done, I can see it was all in good faith, and in an attempt to better the wiki. About the quotes you provided, in both these excerpts, the narrator (not Rowling; though most of the times the author speaks through the narrator, they are regarded as different entities when we're analising a narrative - Rowling as the author can lie [i.e. when she said Grindelwald had died in an interview prior to DH] although she usually refrains to do so, the narrator must not, although he can trick the readers and give them a wrong impression of something/one without being outright lying) is not providing a direct description of the scene (i.e. "There were four figures racing across the lawn") but he is giving an indirect description ("he [Harry] could just make out three figures racing across the lawn"). The narrator is not describing the scene, but it's conveying us, the readers, with what Harry saw of the scene. For all we know, Bellatrix could be there (or could have already got past the gates) but Harry didn't make her out, constituting an omission without being directly lying. This, however, doesn't happen when the narrator describes the action atop the Tower: the narrator says it directly, making it a certain fact that "four people in black robes burst through the door", and not that, for instance, "Harry saw four people bursting through the door". My explanation got a bit long there, by all means, tell me if it isn't that much clear. -- 22:46, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
- Should I presume you and 126.96.36.199 are the same person? If so, I warn you we are being overly indulgent with you as you seem to be preoccupied with this wiki, but really, there's no reason to make those kind of remarks like you did on your recent edit summary in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (video game). Please refrain to do so again, or I will be forced to give you a cool-off block for a couple of days. Now to the matter at hand. It was not me who decided what the role of the narrator was, it is by definition, one character in the narrative mode (in this case non-existant within the fictional universe, as it is an implied character, or a sort of omniscient or semi-omniscient being) who only relates it to the readers (although there are some kinds of narrator who take part in the story, this is not the case in the Harry Potter books). This is a basic notion of literature; it wasn't I (nor the one who drafted the canon policy, for that matter) who came up with this so, of course, no offence taken. "Whenever the films diverge from the books it can be chalked up to the fact that this individual was looking the other way at the time?" No. When the narrator is narrating (redundant, I know) the scene in detail and directly (i.e. through no one else but itself) we must take that as a fact: that's why we don't consider Bellatrix to have been atop the Tower. However, when the narrator is ambiguous in its description of the scene and/or when he does it indirectly (i.e. says what Harry sees, not necessarily what is happening) we can and must, per this policy, refer to the movies as canon. I'm sorry if you not like it but it's the policy as we have it and I must follow it unless there's a change of policy). As for Voldemort's application date, you did have a point, so I removed it from the article. -- 16:20, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I can see we're both preoccupied with the quality of this wiki's articles; if none of us were, we wouldn't be having this very discussion, would we? Ok, alright. You are indeed right it is extremely unlikely Bellatrix might have been among the fleeing Death Eaters when Rowle set Hagrid's hut ablaze (still, from the narrative, it's technically not impossible), but she could easily have flown just as Snape set the warning (and being a known former alumnus, it wouldn't be impossible for her to use some of the castle's secret passageways), or might have been stationed over at the exits to make sure the Death Eaters could escape (Lupin himself says it is likely the DEs have arranged stations before leaving the Room of Requirement). While this is blatant speculation on my behalf, but are still some possible scenarios that include Bellatrix at Hogwarts without directly contradicting the book (and without breaking character like "standing in the shadows doing nothing and watching the fight, unnoticed by all"). -- 18:51, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Not all secret passages were blocked. Only the ones leading outside the school boundaries (i.e. the One-Eyed-Witch Passageway to Hogsmeade). An hypothetical shortcut to get Bellatrix to the front gates faster would be accessible for her (in fact, that was precisely what Harry did while pursuing Snape). Don't mind "flew", I meant to say "fled". And, I might be wrong though, where is it directly stated only a member of Hogwarts's teaching staff could open the entrance gates? I was under the impression anyone sufficiently learned in magic could open them from the inside; in fact, Snape was the last Death Eater to leave the grounds wasn't he? He stopped a bit after Hagrid's cabin, after Harry started hexing him, a bit before getting to the gates, ordering all the Death Eaters out ahead of him. So, we can presume one Death Eater had to have opened the gates, or else Hagrid would of easily intercepted them while they waited for Snape to open the gates. Bellatrix could have been this Death Eater, and this would explain why she wasn't there when Harry got to the grounds. -- 20:54, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
- You didn't read carefully enough. I said: anyone sufficiently learned in magic could open them from the inside. In Snape Victorious when Snape unlocks the gates, the chains snaked backward "creaking" the gates open. In Flight of the Prince, however, after Harry looks for his wand in the ground, he only realises Snape Disapparated when he looks for him. If the Death Eaters were still there, Snape had to open the gates making the creaking sound that would warn Harry Snape had left the school boundaries without having to look at the gates to conclude if Snape had already crossed them. As for the DEs standing around while Snape dealed with Harry, well, they were busy hexing Hagrid, who was preventing them to pass towards the exit. After they got past him and towards the gates, no other mention of them is made, highly implying they left the scene. -- 12:31, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
- There are instances in the series (Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows, mostly) in which it is stated the death of the caster can weaken (like the Fidelius Charm at Grimmauld Place) and/or break completely enchantments or spells (Dumbledore's Petrificus Totalus atop the Tower). The protective enchantments on the gates may have been broken by Dumbledore's murder, and the Death Eaters might have had then the ability to open them (later in the chapter, Scrimgeour and the Ministry delegation enters the Castle's grounds without any mention of having to remove Dumbledore's protective enchantments to let them in). This is speculative at most, but it's still a possible hypotesis. -- 14:42, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
- What of Dumbledore's enchantments remained, exactly? The Ministry delegation is mentioned indeed to have entered the grounds when McGonnagall is having the meeting with the Heads of House in Dumbledore's tower ("He's coming," said Professor McGonagall suddenly, gazing down into the grounds. "The Minister… and by the looks of it he's brought a delegation…" - we see here McGonnagal, the interm Headmistress didn't even know exactly who was crossing the grounds). And in the last chapters, security does certainly seem to have become laxer, Beauxbatons' carriage seems to have been perfectly able to enter the Castle grounds (and again, remember Dumbledore had to break the protective enchantments so that he and Harry could pass with a single broomstick), as do the students' parents to take them out of the school. Even in Deathly Hallows, Flitwick had to re-cast the protective spells once more moments prior to the Battle of Hogwarts, which would already be there if they weren't broken when Dumbledore died. The only protective spell that seems to have remained after his death was the Anti-Apparition Jinx, but then again, we are not really sure if Dumbledore cast that one (remember it was already in place before Philosopher's Stone, and was mentioned in Hogwarts, a History, making it possible it is some sort of innerent magic cast by the Founders themselves). And no, we're not going off-topic, as the whole premise for Bellatrix not being there is that she couldn't have left the school; you yourself admit that her being there (i.e. Great Hall incident) cannot be contradicted in the literary canon. -- 20:54, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of my own oppinion, it's a matter of following and enforcing the approved policy (I would never claim Rowling invisoned Bellatrix at the Battle; if she did why not mention her? However, this is the policy how we have it). So, what we have both gleamed from our argument is (again, strictly following policy):
- Bellatrix entered the Castle via the Room of Requirement with the other Death Eaters;
- She did not, for whatever reason, participate in the fighting in the corridors beneath the Tower, nor she was present atop the Tower when Dumbledore died;
- She wasn't the one to cast the Dark Mark (Gibbon);
- She caused devastation at the Great Hall to show her satisfaction with the mission's success;
- She wasn't the one who set Hagrid's hut aflame (Rowle), nor she was around to witness that event;
- She apparently fled the school grounds before Draco and Snape did.
- BTW, I did not meant to say all the school's protections were gone, just the ones placed over the summer holidays as a result of the Battle of the Department of Mysteries. -- 23:16, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
| This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.|