Talk: Pets

Single article for this CAT

This discussion is listed as an active talk page. Please remove this template when the question has been answered.

So I was almost bold enough to recover en:Magical familiar and simply rename (without redirect, to prevent people from associating the apparent fanon term?) it to en:Pet, because I think it's quite inconvenient when there's no page for it, even though the term is canon.

I mean, sure, there's this CAT, but I think it's more specific to say something is known to be a pet and nice to be able to link there, and the creature article just isn't an ideal place to do this? Upon reviewing the last revision before its deletion and the Category talk:Candidates for deletion/Magical familiar discussion, I think recovering the page without a discussion could be misinterpreted as I'm supporting the fanon aspect (TBH, I somehow think the term is still left over somewhere here on HPW; the page was deleted before my time, but I feel like I've seen the usage still), I'm not.

I just want a page for pets (known individuals and their respective owners, dates etc., it could be informative than what this CAT has to offer), and the deleted page has overlapping content, so I figured a simple fix (ridding the fanon stuff) would have gotten it to work.

Yes, yes, obviously, some people may just take one look at this Talk and go ahead, creating the article, completely missing the purpose of having a discussion. I mean, sure, that'd work, too. I'm only asking because I feel like there's at least partial material worth preserving, so no reason to not acknowledge what other people have previously worked on, even though it had to go through a revamp, but that's just what collaboration is, isn't it? (And, yes, yes; if the majority of whoever chipped in is against reviving and repurposing the page, a new article is the way to go, but I'd like that to be explored after opinions expressed, if possible, seriously. lol) --Sammm✦✧(talk) 10:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not think this category needs deleting for any logical reason, since it currently correctly categorises all known animals in Harry Potter kept as pets by humans, meaning it is both informative and accurate. If you're proposing an article of all known listed pet animals, I would call it "List of pets", since the singular "Pet" isn't an official concept in Harry Potter, but is just a generic name which can be given to animals kept by humans, and what is being proposed above is a list article anyway, so it should be titled as one for accuracy. RedWizard98 (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm now kindly asking whoever wanting to participate this convo to read, digest, and understand what the pitch is actually about, before eagerly sharing thoughts. I'm not trying to be rude, but I am rather a little exasperated since the first person graciously joining (the effort itself is appreciated) totally misunderstood everything and anything that was said. Literally, no one requested this CAT for deletion. READ AGAIN, if your entire argument is based on this notion that came out of nowhere, you are wasting your time.

I'm asking that, in addition to this category, to have an actual main namespace article covering the subject matter, "pet". Like there's Category:Books and book. They can coexist. Calling for one to be created does not equate to calling for the other to be deleted. I reemphasize, if that's the only argument, move on.

I have no idea what "the singular "Pet" isn't an official concept in Harry Potter" means, if the word usage is so offensive, why is it okay for Rubeus Hagrid's pets to be named as such? Why is it okay for Hedwig to be described as Harry's pet owl? Why is it okay to have "There were cages of pets on display." as the description for Magical Menagerie? You are saying the word "pet" has literally never appeared in canon? I admit, I currently cannot verify it, assuming this is true, thanks (I'm not saying this in a sarcastic way), that's eye-opening.

(I did a quick check with what's at hand right before sending out the reply)

1. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Chapter 13 (The Very Secret Diary) - "But monsters don’t make good pets."
2. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Chapter 1 (Owl Post) - "Ron, tall and gangling, with his pet rat Scabbers on his shoulder and his arm around his little sister, Ginny."
3. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 1 (The Riddle House) - "The snake, on the other hand, was curled up on the rotting hearth-rug, like some horrible travesty of a pet dog."
4. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 13 (Mad-Eye Moody) - "Hagrid would have liked nothing better than a pet dragon, as Harry, Ron and Hermione knew only too well – he had owned one for a brief period during their first year, a vicious Norwegian Ridgeback by the name of Norbert."
5. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 26 (The Second Task) - "[...] there were gardens of weed around some of them, and he even saw a pet Grindylow tied to a stake outside one door."

I'm going to be AFK just a little while. If there's still confusion, I'd explain more but I don't want to assume there's a need for it until proven otherwise. (Again, thanks for participating. Unfortunately the start of the argument was just not what was proposed at all, so it's hard for me to pretend it didn't happen.) --Sammm✦✧(talk) 13:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I support a page called "Pet". The word has been used in canon. The concept of a pet has been a thing in the Harry Potter universe, so I don't understand anyone saying that it doesn't. I definitely see the value in a page for pets because they have been a big part of Harry Potter. If bringing a deleted page back will help provide a purpose for canon details found in it, then I won't object.

Wizarding World had an article about pets. In Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 10 (Luna Lovegood) - "everybody scrambled to get their luggage and pets". Even Snape was labelled a "pet" in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 2 (Spinner's End). So I think the article will have plenty of content to write about. - Kates39 (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

An article on pets could definitely be created, yes. The problem with the (old, old) "Magical familiar" article was that it was mostly fanon — and fanon that was explicitly ruled out by JKR. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 16:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Subcategories

I believe it's inherently problematic to have all these subcategories such as Category:Cats and Category:Dogs included here, since there exists those that are not pets. Look at all the Patronus forms included in those categories for example, are they all confirmed pets? And I don't think Death's Dark Mongrel is anywhere near a pet. We should only include true pets in the Pets category. MalchonC (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

You're probably right, not every single dog or cat in those categories is technically a pet. You should make changes to its organisation if necessary. RedWizard98 (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Snakes is another one as well. RedWizard98 (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)