Forums: Index > The Wizengamot archive > Uniformity in article titles


I'm not trying to be obnoxious but I noticed some things are not uniform, as far as article titles go. For instance, Helga Hufflepuff's Cup and Salazar Slytherin's Locket both put the names and objects in uppercase, whereas Tom Riddle's diary places the object in lowercase. I think this should be changed to create uniformity. Whether it's uppercase or lowercase the objects in the Horcrux article titles should all be the same. I also think that the title in the article on Blood purity should have uppercase on both words, making it Blood Purity. Either that, or both lowercase, though i think uppercase is more appropriate in this circumstance. It doesn't make sense to just capitalize Blood. Blood isn't a proper noun so when it appears in the middle or end of a sentence it really sticks out like a sore thumb as a grammatical error. Mafalda Hopkirk 17:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The first letters of titles are automatically uppercase.-Matoro183 (Talk) 18:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright so that pretty much decides it for Blood Purity, i guess, lol. Mafalda Hopkirk 19:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't know about the others though. Usually, the owner's name being placed in front of it would make it proper, and thus capitalized.......hmmm -Matoro183 (Talk) 19:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I personally think as far as Horcruxes go, the object should always be in lowercase, but others might disagree. Mafalda Hopkirk 19:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
A cursory check of the books indicates lower case, such as Hufflepuff's cup. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 19:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for me to change those article titles? Mafalda Hopkirk 19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If no one else has any objections, I don't see why not. The capitalised versions will act as redirects once you move them. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 23:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it looks better lower case too...-Matoro183 (Talk) 01:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to do this, and ran into two problems: the "create a new page" link leads to a page that doesn't work, and if I put the names of articles i want to create in the search field, instead of giving me the option to create that page, it takes me to the other one because it doesn't recognize case differences. Can the titles be manually changed on each page? Mafalda Hopkirk 13:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You can use the Move Page feature. On the top of the page, with the other tabs, is one marked "Move". Click on it, and you should be taken to a page that has the page's current name, then an empty box. Type the name you want the page to have, then click on the move button at the bottom of the page. You don't have to create a new article at all. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 19:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much. That works quite well. Could the bot possible correct the wiki so whenever "Helga Hufflepuff's Cup" appears, it says "Helga Hufflepuff's cup", instead? Mafalda Hopkirk 22:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You'll have to leave a message on DarkJedi613's talk page. He controls the bot. In case, all the remaining capitalised "Cups" will still redirect to the new page for the time being. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 22:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This can be done yes. Just make a list of all the changes to be made and I can run them. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 19:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't consider it before, but what about Gaunt's Ring? I think it makes sense in that case to have uppercase on the object. What does the book officially call it, i don't have it here. Mafalda Hopkirk 22:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have my books to hand either - I'm staying at my girlfriend's parents place over New Year. She might have a copy of HBP, tho, so I'll see if I can check. Also, I was thinking it might be better to formalise the title as Marvolo Gaunt's ring unless the text states otherwise. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 23:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
"Marvolo Gaunt's ring" seems like a great title if it isn't in the books as something else. The only other real choice would be Cadmus Peverell's ring (maybe i'm mistaking the brothers names here) but i'm not sure that makes sense. Mafalda Hopkirk 01:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
OK to change to "Marvolo Gaunt's ring"? Mafalda Hopkirk 12:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Remember redirects are our friends. So if its known as "Marvolo Gaunt's ring" you can redirect "Gaunt's ring", "Gaunt's Ring", "Cadmus Peverell's ring", etc. to that page. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 06:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello all. I would like to express concerns that the titles of the Horcruxes are gramatically incorrect at the present time. They refer to specific objects that belong to specific people, and by rules of grammar their titles should really be capitalized. For appearances sake and to have this wiki taken seriously, I move to have the titles returned to their original forms for the sake of the wiki's image. They look a bit foolish as they are right now, since this is supposed to be an encylopedia. The books never referred to the objects by their full titles, they merely referred to them in passing titles such as "Hufflepuff's cup" or "the cup that had previously belonged to Helga Hufflepuff." In an encylopedia where the article is specifically written about them, their titles should really be gramatically correct (as in all encyclopedia articles). I'm sorry if it sounds like a small concern, I am just concerned about the wiki's image if someone looks on these articles and sees the title looks like a five-year-old's version of it. It just doesn't look professional. TomMarvoloRiddle1926 18:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, you would disagree that "Hufflepuff's cup" and "The cup of Hufflepuff" indicates that JKR wished for the object to remain an improper noun? Mafalda Hopkirk 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I would, because Rowling's fictional books are not a professional encyclopedia. With all due respect, you do not know that Rowling wanted these things to remain as they were spelled in the books (where their full titles were never used), and even so this is an encyclopedia. This is an encyclopedia about the books, not the books themselves. The books never used their full titles, thus explaining why she did not bother with it. But in a professional encyclopedia, things like this really should be capitalized. You would never see things titled this way in Encyclopedia Britannica or World Book or even the typical Wikipedia. All of these objects, which are artifacts that belonged to specific people, should have capitalized names for proper grammar and a professional image on this wiki. TomMarvoloRiddle1926 18:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I understand your concerns in the matter. Secondly, I believe that comments such as "the title looks like a five-year-old's version of it" are unhelpful and unnecessary. Now, to the matter at hand. The books clearly refer to the objects in question in the lower case - Riddle's diary, Hufflepuff's cup, Ravenclaw's diadem, etc. They are never given a full name and title, so any title we use here is conjectural anyway. For all we know, the full title could be "The Diadem of Rowena Ravenclaw" rather than "Rowena Ravenclaw's diadem". However, for convience's sake, we use the name-object convention. We cannot know Rowling's mind, and therefore, cannot be sure of her intentions in either case. However, to use another example, Anakin Skywalker personal weapon would be refered to as Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber, not Anakin Skywalker's Lightsaber would it not? To me, the capitalisation does not look right. (What is it with all the Anakin/Vader refs today?) - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but something like Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber was not of as much signifigance as these artifacts were to this story. Anakin's lightsaber didn't have that signifigant of a role in Star Wars really, it was merely one of many weapons used in the story that eventually faded into obscurity. Things like the locket, the cup, the ring, etc. were necessary for Harry to complete his quest and the search for them spanned over two books. They also belonged to specific people, very important figures at that. For example, the article about the Riddle House is not capitalized. This is specific house that belonged to a specific family, and as such should be titled with both words captialized. Even in Goblet of Fire itself, the name of the Riddle House is capitalized as such as well. Again, it does not look uniform nor professional, as they refer to artifacts of great signifigance to the story. Rowling did not use the books as a professional encyclopedia; proper grammar is supposed to be used in any decent enyclopedia. This is not proper grammar since these refer to specific objects or places of great signifigance. It makes the titles look strange as I said before, to have the first one or two words capitalized and to lower-case the last word. It sticks out like a sore thumb, just to be bluntly honest (helpful or not). You would never see things of such signifigance titled like this in Encyclopedia Britannia or World Book. This being an encyclopedia, I would hope most of you would want to keep it looking like an encyclopedia and not a precise replica of the fictional book series it come from. Encyclopedias that have serious reputations do not title something "as it appears in the book," they follow rules of proper grammar and capitalization. TomMarvoloRiddle1926 03:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense to any of my fellow members, but this isn't a professional encyclopedia. This isn't Encyclopedia Brittanica. This is a Harry Potter Wikia. I think we're pretty much decided on the titles for these Horcruxes and I personally don't see it as being that big of a deal, in fact it makes more sense to me to have it lowercase. Not everything in a title has to be capitalised. Perhaps your energy and zeal for editing could be better directed to other areas of the wikia. I just see this topic as a dead-end arguement that doesn't really give anything of value to the wikia. And, we do term things exactly as they appear in the books. That's where we draw all our information from and that's our bible so to speak. Mafalda Hopkirk 03:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Miss Hopkirk, this wiki belongs to everyone, not merely yourself. This is not a religous fan site as you seem to make it out to be. And yes, whether you like it or not, this is an encyclopedia of sorts, and encyclopedias follow proper grammar. I see a big deal in it because it looks unprofessional and could make people looking for research on the topics turn away due to how (forgive me) immature it looks. Even in the books, something like the "Riddle House" is spelled exactly that way. Go look it up, I just did. Furthermore, you seem awfully domineering, and looking at your page before, it doesn't look like this is the first time you've come into a debate like this. Forgive me, but I would like to point out to you that this wiki belongs to all users, not merely yourself. You were the only user outside the administrators that had any input on the decision without regard to what any of the rest of us might think. I was not a user back then, but I am now, and I am voicing a concern that this wiki with titles like these make it look immature and unprofessional. TomMarvoloRiddle1926 03:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you are talking about but I don't think I want to be involved with this kind of discussion anymore. I'm sure you can find whatever answer you are seeking from the admins. Mafalda Hopkirk 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that you do have an idea but aren't willing to listen to reason on an issue like this. I am sorry that you do not wish to participate in a discussion that is strictly for the betterment of the wiki over partisan interpretations of the books. I am only looking out for the well-being of the wiki, and I do think even small things like this could turn researchers off if it doesn't look like a true encyclopedia article. TomMarvoloRiddle1926 03:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First off I'll just say that we aren't the Encyclopedia Britannica, but we still do strive to be as encyclopedic as possible - in both contents and professional looks. So let us recap for a moment, shall we? TomMarvoloRiddle1926, you suggest we rename all the horcruxes to things such as "Helga Hufflepuff's Cup" is that correct? And this being since it is a proper noun since it is referring to the one and only Hufflepuff's Cup? The other option is to leave them as they are, as they are referred to in the book. Are there any other ideas on the table? Other elements that would support one choice or the others? Tomorrow we will vote somewhat formally -- and leave it open for at least a week so as many members as so choose can participate -- on which option to choose. Sound good to everyone? -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 03:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That is correct (about these things being proper nouns), and that sounds like a wonderful plan to let the users have a say in the matter. For instance, we do not refer to our former presidents as "President kennedy" or "President lincoln" or to the president's home as the "White house," we capitalize both parts of the title because there is only one President Lincoln and one President Kennedy and one White House, not multiple ones. And that is correct, this is not the Encyclopedia Britannica, but it is an encyclopedia nonetheless. That sounds like a fair way of letting the users decide. As I have said before, I do not mean to be a nudge, I am merely looking out for the well-being of this encyclopedia and how it is viewed by all web-surfers that might be researching information from the books. I know that if I were an average joe that just happened onto this wiki and was researching something like the Riddle House for instance, I would instantly doubt the article's worth as it is titled now because if the maker couldn't make the title as it should be grammatically, then what other mistakes should I be expecting within the article itself? This is just to save the wiki from instances like that. And I fully support the vote idea 100% and was hoping one of you would suggest it. TomMarvoloRiddle1926 04:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts before the vote. TomMarvoloRiddle1926 is right about the Riddle House, and I will fix it accordingly as it is named as such in the book. Secondly, I did some checking around, looking at whether or not other sites have capitalised them or not. Wikipedia's Horcrux page does capitalise, but both the HP Lexicon Horcrux page and the Harry Potter Encylopedia Horcrux page do not.
Two things on semi-related note ... I would argue that Anakin's lightsaber is as important an artifact in the SW universe as a Horcrux is in the HP universe. Anakin's saber allows Luke to begin his adventures and training, leading to the rest of the story. The saber has even more history in the Expanded Universe. Secondly, your arguments over the President names overlooks the fact that there were two President Roosevelts ... :) - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 10:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
As Columbo says, just one more thing ... I would like to add a clause to the vote. If the vote is for full capitalisation and the articles are changed, then JK comes out and specifically refers to them in the lower case (in her forthcoming encyclopedia, on her website, etc), then the article titles are to be changed without question since the overriding rule of this wiki is that Rowling's word is law. Comments on this? - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 10:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
That sounds good. So the voting will be open for at least one week. Please sign all your votes with ~~~~. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 13:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would beg to differ about Anakin's lightsaber (Star Wars happens to be the only thing I love more than Harry Potter), because it was one of many weapons like it. It's not like he made the sole lightsaber in the Star Wars universe, and it had no different of qualities than those of any other lightsaber. And what's more, it was lost on Bespin and not heard of again in the official series (which holds more value to me than the EU, although I am a fan of the EU also). Sure it was Luke's first lightsaber, but he lost it and made his own later on. In other words, it was not as signifigant to the Star Wars story as the Horcruxes were to the Harry Potter story. Harry spent a good deal of time in the sixth and seventh novels looking for these objects because they were absolutely necessary to defeat Voldemort. Anakin's lightsaber was not necessary to defeat Vader or Sidious, it was Luke's love for Anakin that defeated Vader and restored Anakin Skywalker (who then destroyed Darth Sidious at last). And about the Presidents, I beg to differ because while there may be more than one President Roosevelt, there is only one President Franklin D. Roosevelt and only one President Theodore Roosevelt. I was an editor of a paper for several years, so I do know a little about what should be capitalized in titles such as the presidents. And on the clause about Rowling's encyclopedia, that sounds satisfactory, but it would serve to make the titles uneven and once more grammatically incorrect. Let's not forget that Rowling wrote these books to be geared toward children orignally, children of a very young age that do not yet practice the laws of English. In short, she originally intended this story for a more immature audience only. Hence, the way she has some things in the novels themselves are going to appear easier to read for children and as such are not always going to be as they would appear in a professional information source. Encyclopedias are more geared toward adult readers that are expanding their knowlege on a topic and should be appealing to a more mature audience. And what's more, Rowling's word is law on content only, not the laws of grammar, punctuation or the English language itself. The titles look nice, even and are correct grammatically when they are all capitalized. To do everything "as Rowling writes it" makes it appear the articles have an OCD with being print-for-print from the books (again her word is law only on the content of the stories). There should be some small degree of independence in a functioning encyclopedia. The whole point is to make the wiki appear more orderly and professional after all. TomMarvoloRiddle1926 18:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Question - Sirius Black's motorbike - will the result of this vote affect that article as well? Mafalda Hopkirk 01:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Since it is also a proper noun, I would recommend that it does. The point is to have them be "uniform" after all. TomMarvoloRiddle1926 01:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that the week is up and several have voiced their support of correcting the titles, is it safe to begin doing so? I would like permission before starting the correction process, if no one has objections to the outcome of the vote? TomMarvoloRiddle1926 21:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 21:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


All Capitalized (4 for)

  1. Vaysey Slytherin 14:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. TomMarvoloRiddle1926 18:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Cubs Fan2007 22:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Lord KAJ Company Office 08:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

All Lower Case (2 for)

Other (Please Explain) (0 for)

Disambiguation pages

Some of them have titles such as Crabbe (disambiguation). Others have titles such as Albus. Which is the format we should use for all disambig pages? Mafalda Hopkirk 01:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The pages referring to proper nouns or people or places would all be included. If you are referring to the word "disambiguation" in the titles of these pages themselves, the word "disambiguation" wouldn't have to necessarily be capitalized since it is set off by itself by means of the parentheses, although it is recommended for the sake of "uniformity" in the article titles. TomMarvoloRiddle1926 02:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What i am asking is if the titles of such pages should all have "(disambiguation)" after them. Mafalda Hopkirk 02:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well in that case I think under certain circumstances they would be useful (such as having more than one Sirius Black for instance). When there's an instance where two people or objects or places share a common name, I'd say that'd be appropriate. TomMarvoloRiddle1926 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the way we're doing it now is fine. Generally the term will be used as a disambiguation page, except in such cases as when the majority of a time someone will be searching for a particular instance. Such as Sirius Black. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk)

That was my thought as well, and that's what I meant previously. The way we do it now we use it to distinguish between things except when someone is searching for a particular thing. It makes little sense to change it really, because it's worked well as far as I've known as it does now. TomMarvoloRiddle1926 06:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So, move all disambig pages that don't have that in the title to have the word in the title? Mafalda Hopkirk 14:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
No. If, by far, there is a most common "version" that users will be searching for than that is the "main" article and the disambiguation article gets " (diambigutation)" in the title. If it is not obvious what they would be searching for than the disambiguation page is the "main" article. See Sirius Black (disambiguation) vs. Sirius Black for the first situation and Tom Riddle for the second situation. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 14:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think my question is being understood. I'm getting a couple of different answers here. What are your thoughts on the Albus page. It doesn't have "(disambigation)" in the title. Neither does Delacour. I'm not trying to change or vote on a change of the way we do disambig pages, i'm trying to understand why some disambig pages get "(disambiguation)" in the title of the article and some do not. Albus and Delacour are vague searches. Perhaps the titles should be moved. Mafalda Hopkirk 14:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay - it's based on the popularity of the search term. For instance, if a user typed Sirius Black into the search bar, they are more than likely looking for the page about Sirius, not a disambiguation page that gives list of the three known Sirius Blacks. Additionally, internal links are likely to link straight to Sirius Black. However, we need a disambig page to distinguish between the three, so we just add the (disambiguation) at the end. As for Albus, which is the more popular search? Albus Potter or Albus Dumbledore? Having someone type in Albus gives them the choice of where they want to go. As for Delacour ... that could probably be redone as a Family page (like Weasley and Potter) rather than a disambig. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 14:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Right. That's what I was trying to say. And that is our "policy" now, although unwritten as it is. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 16:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)