Wikia

Harry Potter Wiki

How do i view my previous questions ?!

11,885pages on
this wiki

Forum page

Revision as of 08:53, February 3, 2010 by Cavalier One (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Forums: Index > The Wizengamot archive > How do i view my previous questions ?!

b

I have been wondering on how to view the previous question in the forum weather or not u have started them...the question i want to view is ..."why dint voldermort marry bellatrix"--Beautiful altar 16:26, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

You can't. They have been deleted. As stated on the top of the forum header, we are not a general Harry Potter discussion forum. Our forums should be used for business and discussion pertaining to the betterment of the Wiki itself. any off topic forums will be deleted in accordance with this policy. - Cavalier OneGryffindorcrest(Wizarding Wireless Network) 16:56, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to contradict you Cavalier One, but that does not seem fair in the slightest. The Help Desk is full of articles that pertain to the wiki's improvement, isn't that enough? What is the point of having two seperate sections of the wiki devoted to that? I think it a little unjust that everyone who has worked on these pages in the Wizengamot section are labelled to be against Wiki Policy. Almost every Forum in there discusses Harry Potter related topics, are you telling me that you are trying to delete all of them even after the amount of effort that has clearly gone into their writing? I know that rules can be changed and I think I have found one in desperate need of consideration.--Yin&Yang 21:56, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Is it fair? Possibly not. Is it policy? Yes. The two separate forums are for different content. The Wizengamot is for content relating to articles, or overarching questions regarding wiki policy. The Help Desk is (or should be) for technical questions related to wiki coding, new features and the like. We did have a community discussion forum at one point, but it devolved into general chaos with editors only choosing to participate in the forums and not edit actual content. For this reason, they were closed down.
I will reiterate: We are not a general Harry Potter discussion forum. We are here to build an encyclopedia of canon content, not to discuss the series in general. If you wish to discuss issues pertaining to Harry Potter, there are literally hundreds of forums and message boards out there. Editors should be concentrating on editing actual articles, not creating forum topics that are against the policies of this wiki.
Will I continue deleting them? Yes. The ones I have allowed to remain will have potential information that can be of use to the actual article editing that should be the primary focus of this wiki. - Cavalier OneGryffindorcrest(Wizarding Wireless Network) 22:52, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from Cavalier One, but I still do not see why the particular page Beautiful Alter requested was deleted. To me it seemed to fit under the heading of having "potential information that can be of use to the actual article editing" process. The information discussed in "Why didn't Voldemort marry Bellatrix?" had a lot of potential for use in actual articles - especially those regarding the relationships between Voldemort and Bellatrix. I specifically recall writing about Bellatrix's obsession with her master and her obligatory marriage to Rodolphus Lestrange. What I have been trying to do in editing character articles is establish the characters a little more thoroughly by refraining from just re-telling the story as many of the articles do. The forum page you deleted could have been used to enhance our understanding of Bellatrix further.--Yin&Yang 03:43, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Because the indicated thread involved speculation on the motives of the two people in question—motives which are not backed up in canon and are open to wild speculation. As to our articles simply retelling the story—we are an encyclopedia. We are not here to speculate, analyse, or interpret. We record and inform. - Cavalier OneGryffindorcrest(Wizarding Wireless Network) 07:50, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

You haven't seemed to have understood what I said earlier at all. When I stated that the articles sometimes require more explaining on characters' personalities, I was referring to actual facts that someone else may have stated in the series. For example, calling Voldemort evil is completely and totally legitimate; Dumbledore himself has labelled him as that. So I have to disagree with you on the 'speculating characters' part. I, personally, do "record and inform" the readers as I make edits (as do many other editors). As for the re-telling of the story, I can give you several examples where the article gives a re-telling of step-by-step events without referring to what it shows about the character. Just yesterday I edited two sections in the 'Bellatrix Lestrange' page that was intended for discussing her relationships with certain characters. The previous editor had, no offence to them, only stated that Bellatrix had fought in the Battle of the Department of Mysteries and faced off against Dumbledore. I built on what was there and added that her ability to deflect Dumbledore's spells and subsequently escape him is indicative of her magical prowess (which has been stated in the books themselves). I also added that her choice of fleeing from Dumbledore rather than duelling him shows her understanding of his superior power; obviously if she was less powerful than her master, whom still couldn't overpower Dumbledore in a duel, she would have little chance of achieving that feat. It is a combination of common sense and canonical fact that I am talking about, not speculation.--Yin&Yang 09:48, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

The title of the thread, in and of itself, implied speculation. "Why didn't X marry Y?" There is no canonical answer because the subject was not broached in the novels. The only reference made is that Rowling said that Bellatrix had an obsessional love for Voldemort during an interview. As for your edits to Bellatrix—I'm not disputing them. The information that you state you have added is derived from canonical facts shown within the scope of the novels. The forum thread for discussing her possible relationship with another character is pure speculation, open to fan theories and guesses, and was thus deleted. Also, on other point, we should not be stating that Voldemort is evil - this violates our neutral point of view policy. Encyclopedic content should be neutral and unbiased. References to him being evil should include qualifiers such as "X believed Y to be the most evil wizard" or "X was considered to be the most evil wizard of all time". - Cavalier OneGryffindorcrest(Wizarding Wireless Network) 10:50, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

The example I gave you about Voldemort being evil was just that, an example. I was not planning on stating that very opinionated view of Voldemort in an article, on that we agree. The title of the forum we're discussing may imply speculation, but it poses an emphasis on Bellatrix's relationship with Voldemort. Honestly, the page could have been titled something else but that doesn't detract from the fact that it is based around a very interesting question: Why didn't Voldemort take Bellatrix to be more than just a devoted servant? The answer being because Voldemort could not understand what love is - a definite fact from the novels. These forums may not always seem relevant but you should never underestimate the results of several people's efforts to bounce ideas off of one another. All it takes is for one person to realise a new theory and an entire new article can spawn, just like that. Myself, I constantly have new thoughts given to me by other forum starters and, when I've explored them enough through long discussions, I use them to edit articles.--Yin&Yang 11:52, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

To address your points:
The title of the forum we're discussing may imply speculation, but it poses an emphasis on Bellatrix's relationship with Voldemort.
It implies speculation, therefore it is a magnet for fan speculation despite the good intentions of the creator. Speculation and discussion of general Harry Potter topics is not allowed.
Why didn't Voldemort take Bellatrix to be more than just a devoted servant? The answer being because Voldemort could not understand what love is - a definite fact from the novels.
And, since that is the extent of what we know about their relationship, the discussion should have ended with that fact.
These forums may not always seem relevant but you should never underestimate the results of several people's efforts to bounce ideas off of one another.
I don't. I use discussion forums away from this site. I just don't believe that this is the place for them.
All it takes is for one person to realise a new theory and an entire new article can spawn, just like that.
And, right there, you have hit the nail on the head of why such forums should be deleted here. A theory is speculation. Speculation is not allowed on this wiki. To use ideas, theories or assumptions gained through said discussion is original research that cannot be attributed to a Canon source. If it is not attributable, then it is speculation at best, Fanon at worst. - Cavalier OneGryffindorcrest(Wizarding Wireless Network) 12:13, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be delving into semantics now. When I said that a 'theory' can lead to a new article, I do not necessarily mean something completely unrelated to the canonical information we have about Harry Potter. I should have said 'realisation' in place of 'theory' perhaps, because sudden realisations of facts (keyword) are exactly what led to the creation of the bulk of this wiki's articles. Two heads are better than one, a whole wiki community's worth of heads just extends that further! I am sure that you have at least once had read a Harry Potter book and only realised the full-extent of the plot after you have mulled things over in your mind, correct? Well that is what editors are doing in these forums, mulling things over with others so as to grasp previously missed concepts. That is all I'm talking about. These sorts of missed or overlooked concepts are then used to produce whole articles afterwards. As for the title of the deleted forum being a "magnet for fan speculation", you're not giving the other users much credit there. I think it's safe to say that the majority of editors actually read the previously written comments before adding their own. Now I'm sure this is possible, so what do you think about undoing your deletion of that page and altering the title to make it appear less 'speculation-magnetic'. You can call it whatever you like, but if fans would like to write in it to benefit their understanding and hence benefit the wiki, then I see no other reason why they shouldn't be allowed to. I'm not disagreeing with the policy itself, I just don't think that that particular article is classified as straying from the rulebook.--Yin&Yang 14:37, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

To address your points:
because sudden realisations of facts (keyword) are exactly what led to the creation of the bulk of this wiki's articles.
No, reading the books, watching the films, playing the games, etc, and discovering the information that lay within led to the creation of the bulk of the wiki's articles.
Two heads are better than one, a whole wiki community's worth of heads just extends that further!
I agree, which is why I am proud of the community I helped to build. We have some excellent editors with a full grasp of Harry Potter lore who are dedicated to improving the information contained within our articles.
I am sure that you have at least once had read a Harry Potter book and only realised the full-extent of the plot after you have mulled things over in your mind, correct? Well that is what editors are doing in these forums, mulling things over with others so as to grasp previously missed concepts. That is all I'm talking about.
Except you're doing it in the wrong place. There are hundreds of forums that welcome the kind of discussions you want to take place. Our forums should be dedicated to wiki business, otherwise there is the very real possibility that vital threads concerned with improving the wiki will be lost under a sea of threads on general discussions of who people's favourite characters are, or answering questions because people cannot be bothered to read the article in question. For instance, I deleted a thread with the title "How did Lupin become a Werewolf?". This is a clear case of someone being too lazy to read the article in question and discover the answer for themselves. Communication between members on a personal level is not discouraged however; there is the IRC channel for real time communications, and you may use your talk pages as long as the discussion complies with our Talk Page Policy.
As for the title of the deleted forum being a "magnet for fan speculation", you're not giving the other users much credit there.
I expect people to follow the guidelines and rules of this wiki. Disruption of the site is grounds for a block.
Now I'm sure this is possible, so what do you think about undoing your deletion of that page and altering the title to make it appear less 'speculation-magnetic'. You can call it whatever you like, but if fans would like to write in it to benefit their understanding and hence benefit the wiki, then I see no other reason why they shouldn't be allowed to.
Yes, it is possible. Will it be done? No. You see, I have reviewed the thread in question—did you think that I deleted it on a whim without reading it? The majority of it was a conversation between yourself and Beautiful altar that descended into wondering who Edward Cullen was and a discussion on what the administrators do. Oh, and the forum page was vandalised at some point. Very productive, I think, and not a page I am given to restoring any time soon.
I'm not disagreeing with the policy itself, I just don't think that that particular article is classified as straying from the rulebook.
Then we are in disagreement over this issue. If anything, it devolved into a chat between the pair of you towards the end. - Cavalier OneGryffindorcrest(Wizarding Wireless Network) 17:36, October 20, 2009 (UTC)


OKAY....thanks a lot people...but i am not jobless enough to read the whole thing...in plain words the answer for my question is "NO" RIGHT ?!...--Beautiful altar 11:51, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Beautiful Alter the answer is 'no' you can't see your page because Cavalier One deleted it. Might I just add to Cavalier that I seriously cannot be bothered to argue my point anymore on this matter and so if you please, just close the curtain on this overlong discussion. I'm not backing down on my argument per se, I've just seen this type of repetitive nonsense tossed back and forwards between two editors before and let me tell you, it can last months so if you want to keep the page B. Alter was talking about deleted, then so be it. I've got other things to be getting on with as I am sure you do.--Yin&Yang 02:06, October 22, 2009 (UTC)


Awesome !!!!....u got my vote as MINISTER OF MAGIC !!!! --Beautiful altar 11:32, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that if you deleted Beautiful altar's forum, there is a lot of other forums that should be deleted. There seems to be an unregistered user who seems to be full of questions but doesn't want to bother looking for them. Are you planning to delete them, Cav? Because if you aren't, I don't think that's very fair. QuidditchLoverSnitch 2(My talk)(contribs) 22:46, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki