I don't mean to offend the composer of this article, but I doubt that there was much point in referencing a character that obviously does not matter. Admittedly I had tried to comprehend just who Moody was talking about when I first saw the Goblet of Fire film. I had thought that it was some sort of foreshadowing for the Order of the Phoenix film that succeeded it. However, this proved incorrect; there wasn't even a mention of the name 'Sturgis Podmore', the man Imperiused into touching Harry's prophecy, (which is who I thought the Unidentified boy might relate to) in the fifth film. This mere mention of Moody's/Barty Crouch Junior's is totally irrelevant.--Yin&Yang 09:06, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
- No offense taken; you were, after all, just expressing your opinion. However, I respectfully disagree. While you are correct that this character obviously does not matter, he is still a character, albeit a minor one, and therefore is part of the Harry Potter universe. This Wiki makes references to dozens of minor characters; Gordon, Madam Marsh, Poliakoff, and Fubster among them, and many more unidentified characters, Unidentified Beauxbatons boy, Unidentified Committee for the Disposal of Dangerous Creatures member, Unidentified Death Eater at the Astronomy Tower, Unidentified bookseller, etc., etc. --Parodist 11:28, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
I suppose you're right about that. One thing I have to add though is that most of the characters in any particular film, are extras. Only a select few are "minor" characters and even fewer are the "main/major" characters. Names of unidentified characters that appear on screen are really just there to fill a void and usually have no direct impact on the plot of the story. The Harry Potter film franchise is no different. I understand that fans, including myself, sometimes stop and wonder who each character in a film is and more importantly, who they relate to in the books; and so the creation of webpages like this one is inevitable. I think that what needs to be added to said pages is a small sentence explaining that they are not necessarily meant to be given much attention and therefore accept them as irrelevant. Your thoughts?--Yin&Yang 01:35, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I definately agree with what you said about minor characters and extras, but I'm still thinking over the sentence at the bottom calling them "irrelevant." I would think that the fact they are not meant to be given much attention would be implied by the fact that the article is so short, and that it contains no mention to his connection to any other characters in the franchise. --Parodist 11:28, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
- There is no need to mark pages on minor, or mentioned only characters, as irrelevant. This is a comprehensive encyclopaedia, working towards the recording of all information pertaining to the Harry Potter Universe, regardless of its place in the overall story. To mark pages as you suggest would detract from the quality of the article, and go against the "in-universe" policy of this wiki. Therefore, any such additions will be removed. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 12:29, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to just clear something up . When I said that these pages ought to be marked with a sentence explaining its lack of relevance to a story, I didn't mean to literally use the word 'irrelevant' on the page. Sorry if that mislead any of you - that was a bad choice of words. What I meant was that maybe a small dot-point could be added to the 'Notes' section of the pages that states something along the lines of this: "Considering this character's brief mentioning/appearance in the Harry Potter and the (...) film/book, little else is known regarding them. Therefore, they do not affect the plot of the storyline to a considerable extent if at all." Parodist, I agree with you on the fact that the shortness in page length signifies the character's lack of involvement in the text, but I also think that it implies incompleteness on behalf of the Wiki community. I for one, would much prefer these characters to have a more substantial page length but seeing as that is impossible due to a lack of information, I think we need to justify ourselves. I would just feel more comfortable if there was a line on these sorts of pages to explain the lack of information. Does that make more sense?--Yin&Yang 08:12, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
- Allow me to reiterate; addition of any such text like you suggest will be removed. We are an inclusive encyclopaedia. While there are some limits to what we feel need to be created, anything mentioned inside Canonical works deserves its own article free of such statements. We are not Wikipedia with strict notability guidelines governing just who gets an article and who doesn't. Qualifiers on the state or relevance of the character/object/location/etc to the overall storyline is not necessary. We record information. We do not comment on it. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 09:56, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Cavalier One, I appreciate that. Even though it is clear that my suggestion will not be taken into consideration, I must insist that there are many pages within this wiki that hint bias or at least an opinion that would count as "commentation". Therefore, saying that all the pages are purely factual is incorrect. Note that I am not criticising the editors or composers of this wiki, I am just expressing details that I have noticed.--Yin&Yang 06:24, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
According to the infobox he died before 1995. This isn't entirely accurate. We don't know that he is dead, only that he never came out of the department of mysteries. He probably is dead, but since Crouch only said that he never came out, the article should be changed to reflect that.Icecreamdif 22:31, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
Oh. Not meaning to be conspiratorial, but I always assumed Barty Jr. (disguises as Moody).was making a reference to his own trial where he was no more than a boy - 'the last boy who went into the DoM and never came out' was him! The Ministry's summer internships are completely unrelated to the DoM (I doubt they'd let underage wizards into the most secure and secretive place in the Ministry.) This is why Crouch Sr. reacts to the comment so visibly - apart from recognising David Tennant's improvised flicky-tonguey thingy.
Does anyone think the same??? Or am I just drawing connections where there are none?
- Traskold -
Is there proof this character actually exists?
This could just have been a flippant remark to unnerve his father while keeping an eye on him and Harry. We don't know what Crouch Sr. was going to say because he abuptly ended the conversation when he recognized his son's facail tick. Tjb173 (talk) 01:56, March 3, 2014 (UTC)