Wikia

Harry Potter Wiki

Wands guidelines

12,005pages on
this wiki

Forum page

Revision as of 08:22, September 5, 2011 by Cavalier One (Talk | contribs)

Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > Wands guidelines


Does anyone else think it might be a good idea to introduce some guidelines in regards to articles on wands? Specifically, wheter or not an individuals wand is notable enough to have it's own article? 11 new articles on wands have been created in the past 24 hours alone. All written by the same user, and all completely identical except for the name of the wand's owner. None of these articles even provide the reader with any information, other than to state the obvious fact that "this was the wand of so and so". I really think we should nip this in the bud, before wands become the new "unidentified individual". Jayden Matthews 14:43, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Make that 12. Jayden Matthews 14:52, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
I agree there should be some sort of guidelines, but how to select which wands are relevant enough to deserve their own article? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:37, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
I think a good place to start would be deleting all those wands whose only appearance is the lego video game. After that we should ask ourselves how much potential each article has. Which wands performed particularly unique or powerfull magic? Which wands played a major part in wizarding history? That sort of thing. Jayden Matthews 18:47, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
I think you're overlooking the fact that we still have silly, unnecessary articles like this or especially this. Some of the wand articles don't really need to be there but there are tons of pages like the ones I mentioned that are even worse. -HoboHunter28- (Leave me an owl!) 19:45, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
Another message: I think Danniesen's only doing it to add to his pages created count.-HoboHunter28- (Leave me an owl!) 19:50, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
I originally suggested this on Seth Cooper's talk page. I think it would be more practical to merge all of these nearly identical articles into one article entitled "Wands of unknown wood and core material" (or something of the sort). -JDRooDigger 20:17, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
To state my idea more clearly, I don't think we should just delete all of the articles related to wands from Lego Harry Potter: Years 1-4, because they are technically canon according to policy, but instead merge ALL articles of wands of unknown length, wood, and core material into one article (most likely with a few special exceptions). -JDRooDigger 20:26, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion to merge nearly all unknown wands into one article. There's no reason why we should have a million articles that are all the same except for the name. If more information is released later on a particular wand it is simple enough to create a page then for it. -Shorty1982 21:45, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent)Actually, rather than creating an overall page for these wands, I would suggest merging them into the appropriate character's articles. - Cavalier OneGryffindorcrest(Wizarding Wireless Network) 08:40, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

Your idea could work, Cavalier, but how would such a merge work? Would their article just mention that they have a wand of unknown wood and core material? Would that be better (and easier) than just having a single page listing all wands of unknown wood and core material? -JDRooDigger 12:45, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

A single page is a bad idea because it would just be a great long list where the same thing is written over and over again. Hardly any better than individual pages. Merging in with the charcter articles would be better, but in my opinion it should only be done when there is actually something to say about the wand itself. Jayden Matthews 13:24, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

But then it would be inconsistant; some character's wands would be featured on here, and others wouldn't and they all would be canon. Perhaps a page such as "Characters with a wand with unknown wood and core material" would work? That way it would be a list of characters with such wands, and it could direct you to the characters pages. Again, just an idea. Either way, it's obvious that we need some sort of merge. -JDRooDigger 19:55, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

Creating a separate page is unnecessary I believe. Articles on wands should follow a certain criteria, in my opinion. Is there a description of said wand? Length, core, wood? Is there an image or replica created of said wand? (And by image I don't just mean in the hand of the character from a distance. A good close image with detail). Has the wand done anything notable? If a wand article doesn't meet one of these three criteria, preferably all three, then it is not notable enough for its own article. Redirect it into the character article, and mention that the character had a wand in their Magical Abilities section. - Cavalier OneGryffindorcrest(Wizarding Wireless Network) 20:34, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
That's a very good idea, Cav. It's the same criteria Wookiepedia use with articles about lightsabers. JDRooDigger, imagine for a second what a single article would look like. Better yet, I'll show you.

This wand owned by so and so was made of unknown wood and core materials. He/She purchased it at age eleven at Ollivanders Wand Shop.

This wand owned by so and so was made of unknown wood and core materials. He/She purchased it at age eleven at Ollivanders Wand Shop.

This wand owned by so and so was made of unknown wood and core materials. He/She purchased it at age eleven at Ollivanders Wand Shop.

This wand owned by so and so was made of unknown wood and core materials. He/She purchased it at age eleven at Ollivanders Wand Shop.

This wand owned by so and so was made of unknown wood and core materials. He/She purchased it at age eleven at Ollivanders Wand Shop.

This wand owned by so and so was made of unknown wood and core materials. He/She purchased it at age eleven at Ollivanders Wand Shop.

This wand owned by so and so was made of unknown wood and core materials. He/She purchased it at age eleven at Ollivanders Wand Shop.

This wand owned by so and so was made of unknown wood and core materials. He/She purchased it at age eleven at Ollivanders Wand Shop.

This wand owned by so and so was made of unknown wood and core materials. He/She purchased it at age eleven at Ollivanders Wand Shop.

This wand owned by so and so was made of unknown wood and core materials. He/She purchased it at age eleven at Ollivanders Wand Shop.

Now, please tell me what on earth the point of such an article would be? Jayden Matthews 21:16, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see I'm out numbered here. Cavalier's idea is good too. Honestly, as long as something practical is done to get rid of those nearly identical articles (and put the little information they contain elsewhere), I'll be happy. Although, I think you quite got what I was going for with that rather lengthy example of yours. While my initial idea would have most likely looked like that, the one from my last post was more like a list of characters with wands of unknown length, wood, and core material. Kind of like a disambiguation page. I don't know if this would be possible or effective in takingcare of the issue, but as you stated, Cavalier's idea is good, and as he is an admin, he has more of an idea of how the wiki works than I do. Once again, it's just an idea I had. -JDRooDigger 23:54, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

I think Cav's criteria ought to do the trick (although I think, for the sake of articles like "Dean Thomas's second wand", we should add a fourth criterion: Is there any unique information pertaining exclusively to that wand's history, like transfer of ownership, etc.). Anyway, should be add it onto the general policy page? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:25, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
Adding that criteria as well should work. We could add it to the general policy, but I'm thinking a larger "notability policy" is needed to corral these articles, as well as all the other "Unidentified teacher (XXXXXIIII) articles. - Cavalier OneGryffindorcrest(Wizarding Wireless Network) 08:09, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. There was a seperate forum to discuss merging articles on unidentified characters, but it was abandoned, despite several attempts to revive it. Jayden Matthews 08:59, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

I think a "hub" article for wands of minor notability might be warranted if we can get some pictures or information on their usage (i.e. did the owner ever cast a particular spell) from Lego Harry Potter: Years 1-4. Otherwise I'd support having minor wands redirect to the articles on their owners. Starstuff (Owl me!) 03:51, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Well, if they were seen to cast a particular spell, then that should be noted in their magical abilities section anyway. Also, instead of a hub article on minor wands, we might be able to introduce a section into the general "Wand" article that covers it and then links to the individual users. - Cavalier OneGryffindorcrest(Wizarding Wireless Network) 08:22, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki