This is a Crushing Cabinet, I get that. But where is the Vanishing Cabinet then? --18.104.22.168 20:40, October 22, 2012 (UTC)
- Someone on Facebook is claiming that in Half-Blood Prince it says that Draco is standing in front of a cabinet, that is a Vanishing Cabinet, and that it is the same in which Harry hid in from the Malfoys in Chamber of Secrets. --22.214.171.124 17:12, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
- By our canon policy, since the cabinet from Chamber of Secrets is not explicitly identified as the Vanishing Cabinet, we accept the film as canon, and thus it's a Crushing Cabinet for our purposes. I agree with your friend that it's most likely supposed to be the Vanishing Cabinet, though, but that would be undue speculation. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 17:18, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
- No, I'm almost certain in the book that J.K Rowling meant the cabinet to be the Vanishing Cabinet, the book is meant to be canon, not the film. The article about the vanishing cabinet says that Harry hid in it in 1992. 126.96.36.199 00:28, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
- While I agree with you, the problem is that Rowling has never, to my knowledge, explictly said that the cabinet from Chamber of Secrets is the Vanishing Cabinet, regardless (and prehaps because) of how obvious it is. However, presuming that it is such, particularly when we have a source (a lower canon source, but still a source) to the contrary is, as Wikipedia calls it, original research and thus not encyclopedic. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 00:34, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
As this edit war is getting us nowhere, and I believe I am at fault here as well in this regard, I will wait for another user's opinion to be added to the mix before I continue to revert your edits. Please note that I am still removing your notation that this only appears in the film from the main part of the article, as references to real-world media are out of universe and thus against policy. If it is agreed that the book cabinet is indeed the Vanishing Cabinet then, rest assured, that occurance will not be mentioned in the main part of the article at all. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 01:03, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
I think the middle bit should be removed, because it is not definitely true, shouldn't that section of articles only show stuff that is definitely true in the book.
- Agreed that the edit war is pointless; I've just reverted all edits made and restored it to the last version before the edit war. Unless you can a valid canon source can be given stating that it was a Vanishing Cabinet that Harry hid in rather than this Crushing Cabinet, the article will state that Harry hid in the Crushing Cabinet. All edits made changing this without providing a source will be reverted. Likewise, if a source is given that it wasn't the Crushing Cabinet, those edits are not to be reverted. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:19, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
- I think I've found a solution, I've put in the behind the scenes section what happens in the film, and why the book probably means the Vanishing Cabinet.
- Well, I said that most fans believe the book means the Vanishing Cabinet and not a "Crushing Cabinet"
- The problem being that "most fans believe" isn't good enough to support an argument. If the fans' belief is the only evidence that it wasn't a Crushing Cabinet that Harry went into, then the films and video games take precedence and it remains that he did step into the Crushing Cabinet, just that he didn't shut the door all the way. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:48, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Yes but that's why it was put into behind the scenes. Also, there is evidence to suggest that it is the same cabinet, because in CoS the cabinet was described as large and black, exactly the same as how it was later described in H-BP. There is nothing in the book to suggest it was a Crushing Cabinet, so the two possibilities should go in the behind the scenes section, instead of on possibility that everyone thinks is false, is put into the in-universe section as fact. If you read the section about Tom Riddle's Diary, there is a bit about Ginny demanding to return and get it when they left for Hogwarts in CoS. However that could have just been any diary, not nececarily Tom Riddle's Diary because it isn't specified. Yet, that is still on the Diary's page. 188.8.131.52 10:08, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Please change your system, the movies should never have any canon at all. They should be forgotten about completely apart from out-of-universe on this website. The movies are s***, and most of the had no input from Rowling, they shouldn't override the books when the book don't specify that the movies are wrong. I notice you have an article about every single school subject noted on the replica of the movie's marauder's map. That is the stupidest thing ever; the books state all the subjects, and why would there be a co-curricular club called, for example, Ghoul Studies? I can't believe you made an article when about things like that when J.K. Rowling or the books never mention them. I think anything that the books don't mention shouldn't be on this website. I think the whole crushing cabinet article should be removed, and the information about Harry hiding should be put on the vanishing cabinet page, but as a possibility. In fact it already is on the specific page about the two vanishing cabinets, which is hypocritical. Warbo (talk) 10:39, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Please, watch your language. And it was already decided on, eight years ago in fact, that the movies and games would be considered canon here, as would the video games. J. K. Rowling has stated that she approves of the films and understands that they had to change some things for various reasons.
- If you are looking for a wiki that takes only information from the books and are sure that you can follow the policies, there's always the Potter Dictionary Wiki, always in need of editors. However, be warned that we won't be tolerating any violation of the policies if you are interested. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 12:04, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
- PS: Thanks for pointing out that similarity, now we have at least that to go by, otherwise it would have been speculation which as far as I'm aware isn't allowed in articles. As for the point about TM Riddle's diary - perhaps a new post on that page's talk page would be necessary. And I'd recommend reading canon for a better understanding of why the Crushing Cabinet is considered the one Harry hid in, among other things. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 12:10, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong, her only input was signing the contract letting them make movies, which she shoudln't have done. Also she was cedited as creative consultant in the last thee movies I believe. You are the one who doesn't have the faintest clue what they're on about. The canonity system should be changed.
- There isn't even such thing as an executive director of film-making you idiot. If you mean executive producer you should realise that they dont actually do anything other than fund the film. That is there only job, money. Idiot.
- While you're right about the crediting list, there was no need for the "which she shouldn't have done" in my opinion. Also, the canonicity system has been in place for eight years now; I highly doubt the opinion of one contributor will change a whole lot especially after literally hundreds of others have complained to no result. I don't see why you're bringing this up again; the change has been made to the page as suggested that the cabinet Harry hid in "may have" been the Vanishing Cabinet, as that is all that can be verified. PS: You have just violated the no personal attacks policy by calling RobertATfm an idiot... good going. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:07, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
On a somewhat lighter note, should this page be renamed to merely "Cabinet", per Pottermore (see here)? I don't really support the move myself, given the blandness of the name, which is why I'm not adding a rename template quite yet, but it's a valid argument, and I merely wonder if others think it has merit. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 00:52, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, I think that it's just a placeholder; however, it is a canon source after all... I think if someone else agrees, then the Pottermore canon will take precedence and it could be renamed. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:48, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
Alright, now there's some actual canon proof against the COS cabinet being this "Crushing Cabinet" and not the Vanishing Cabinet from HBP. The cabinet as shown on Pottermore in the moment "Borgin and Burkes" is identical in appearance to the one from "The Room of Hidden Things". Can this, plus the other circumstantial evidence, be enough to regard the Crushing Cabinet as a non-canon gloss from the films? -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 19:02, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
- With proper canon proof now, I'm inclined to agree, and would like to issue apology to Warbo and the various IP addresses who pointed this out in the original discussion and who I repeatedly rebuffed. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 19:38, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
- So, despite this recent revelation, why has this article not been changed or deleted? It is clear that the cabinet mentioned in CoS was intended to be the Vanishing Cabinet, and not the Crushing Cabinet mentioned in the script for a deleted scene in the movie. So why is this still on the website as canon?
- Warbo (talk) 21:05, April 5, 2015 (UTC)