Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force/Notability/Teachers

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

merge

Articles covered by this discussion

Discussion

Well here we are, the first discussion under the new template system! I propose that all the Hogwarts teachers, bar Dumbledore, Hagrid and Snape, be merged to one Hogwarts staff article, and that all the complicated and confusing redirects that currently exist be realigned to that one article. Happy-melon 20:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I concur. As it stands now, there doesn't seem to be much real world content written about them, so if we curtail the plot summary type information, it would probably make one nice article. I wouldn't be opposed to splitting some of them in the future if someone found enough real world information to write a full article on one of them though. – Basar (talk · contribs) 23:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support it, one strong Hogwarts staff article is better than a dozen stubby in universe ones. Judgesurreal777 00:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd make Moddy, Umbridge and Lupin in a different list of characters, preferably a List of Characters in Harry Potter, which would have main characters. Merge the rest. i ^said 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "I propose that all the Hogwarts teachers, bar Dumbledore, be merged to one Hogwarts staff article,". Just to get sure, that only includes the characters listed here, not Hagrid or Snape, right? Because I'm definitely against merging Hagrid or Snape into any other articles. As for the ones listed, I'm definitely in favour for keeping McGonagall. I propose that she is noteworthy, because her role within the series is big enough. While notability is not automatically inherited, characters with such a prominent role in the biggest selling book series are noteable enough by definition. I added two pieces of secondary literature in her article, I hope this helps keeping the article. I'm neutral about the rest and will support either decision. Neville Longbottom 18:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed, I meant, somewhat optimistically, to simultaneously exclude those teachers I had deliberately left off the list, and include those I had accidentally missed off!! Rather a lot to expect everyone else to be psycic! I have ammended the proposal above. I'm not sure how strong the argument for McGonnagal is. Note the difference between important and notable in both the current and proposed versions of WP:FICT. Happy-melon 19:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, according to the guidelines "critical reception" counts as real-world content. I added two critical receptions about McGonagall's character by scholars, one positive and one negative. This is something, even though it should possibly be expanded. By the way, there are critical receptions about more of these characters as well. Trelawney, for example, gets some sections in at least three critical works about females in the Harry Potter series I read. I just didn't add it, because I still can see, if people don't see her as noteable, (even though much more minor characters from other shows and books do get their own articles) and I wanted to start with the articles, which I thing really deserved to stay. (The next ones, I'll try to keep with biting and scratching are Sirius Black and Neville Longbottom, should they be in "danger". ;-) ). Neville Longbottom 10:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that if we agree to merge them, rather than create sections devoted to each teacher, we write a more comprehensive article that covers all of the teachers in prose form with section breaks for more plot-related things than character-related things. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that it would be better to organise characters by the real world books than fictional organistaions or orders (Hogwarts teachers, slytherins, death eaters, etc.) articles on fiction should be preseneted from a real world perspective (see WP:WAF and WP:FICT) and I think that this would go some way to correcting the current situation. Also consider an encyclopaedia visiter who may not have read or know the details of the Harry Potter books - by organising them into articles like "Characters who first appeared in Harry Potter and the..." the contents become rleatively obvious. As it stands a pre-existing knowledge of the fictional grouping is required to understand the articles , making articles easily accessable is mentioned somewhere in the article grading system and is an important part of an encylopaedia. [[Guest9999 10:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

@Neville's comment, I feel weary too about redirecting McGonagall. Would anyone else support leaving her out of this merge? @Page style, I think using a different style is a good idea in theory, but I think it would be practically hard to write, and I think it might not be as utilitarian. Also, all of the examples we have to work with use the character separated format including Characters of Final Fantasy VIII which is FA and listed on the exemplary articles at WP:WAF. Simpsons articles also seem to use this format List of characters in The Simpsons. If it works out though, I support it of course. – Basar (talk · contribs) 03:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any evidence on McGonagall's page that the character is notable and articles on fiction should be based around their real world relavence - I think it would be better to merge first and then if real world information appears or notability is established the page could be recreated. [[Guest9999 10:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

According to the guidelines, critical receptions count as real world content and therefore help making a fictional character noteable. I've already added two critical receptions about McGonagall. I could add more (as I read more), but I have to find them again first. Neville Longbottom 11:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those pieces appear to be about McGonagall they probably simply mention or talk about her within the article in relation to the main focus - they may be fine to use within an article but I do not think they can be used to establish notability. If everything mentioned within a reliable source became notable there would be articles on all the spouses and relatives of notable people who are mentioned in biographies and articles. A subject must be notable in it's own right, notability is not inherited and I do not think that - at this point - any evidence has been shown that McGonagall is notable in her own right and not merely as part of the Harry Potter Books Series and Harry Potter Universe.[[Guest9999 14:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

You are right that these works aren't about McGonagall, in that she is the main topic of them (which in most of them is the protrayal of females in the Harry Potter series). However, it is also not true, that she is just mentioned in them as an aside, like the spouse of a famous actor, or something. Her characters gets analyzed by the scholars in these works, as the scholars try to prove that she is or isn't a strong female character. It therefore is something between the two extremes. I'm not sure, if that makes her noteable enough, as that case isn't really mentioned in the guidelines, but she is, at the very least, a big "sub-topic" in most of these articles. Neville Longbottom 16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would the general feeling be merge all but McGonagall? Judgesurreal777 04:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(break) I think it would be safe to say that. It would be nice to have more input on McGonagall before we call her. – Basar (talk · contribs) 04:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered we haven't figured out where we are merging them. – Basar (talk · contribs) 05:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Gilderoy Lockhart got merged into Minor Hogwarts teachers. I suppose we should merge the other teachers in that article as well and renaming it as "Hogwarts staff" or something, since Filch and Pomfrey got merged into that article as well, and they aren't teachers. Neville Longbottom 09:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I would prefer, at least for now. I don't think Moody should go with the teachers because he technically never taught at Hogwarts though; I think Lupin is OK to go with the teachers, for now. – Basar (talk

· contribs) 09:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an in-universe perspective though. For the majority of GoF, Moody is presented as a Hogwarts teacher. As far as the readers are concerned, his character taught at Hogwarts for a year. Happy-melon 12:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that Hogwarts teachers would serve as the merge article, and we can try to source it, and if not we can always just put that article into the main characters article, as there are many important characters who are staff. Judgesurreal777 06:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"by organising them into articles like "Characters who first appeared in Harry Potter and the..."" That's something I'd like. To move all characters (except the main characters) to List of characters in the Harry Potter books and re-construct that page to a "Harry Potter characters" or something like that, because it looks sloppy imo. And there you sort by appearance like: "First appeared in Philosopher's stone, A-Z. First appeared in Chamber of Secrets, A-Z...". But you can start with links to the main characters that have their own articles. Chandler talk 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is rather confusing - could you explain again please? I suspect that you have a good point, but I'm not sure exactly what it is you're arguing for. Happy‑melon 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well its like, we have all these Minor character articles, at least before "Minor slytherin students" "Minor huffelpuff students" "Minor ministry workers" "minor hogwart staff" (plus there's both Hogwarts staff which have the character articles now right? and Staff of Hogwarts which is like the same thing but without the articles.). But the idea I think is more to collect every character in just ONE article but characters like Harry, Ron, Snape etc. (Maybe the bigger families could have their own article where all the members are located at.) Dont know if that explains it more... :D Chandler talk 19:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I think Xhandler is suggesting sorting characters by the first book in which they appeared (e.g. Kingsley Shacklebolt would be in a First appeared in OoP; Gilderoy Lockhart would be in a First appeared in CoS, etc.). Personally, I don't think this would be helpful at all – for readers searching for a character, it requires them to know what book they first appeared in, which is not the first thing you know about them, necessarily. This option doesn't sort by important info, just bookkeeping information. Besides, for cases like Cedric Diggory, when the character first appears in PoA but isn't relevant in GoF, it defeats the purpose. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 19:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see your point, but they don't really have to search, just use ctrl+f ;). But the thing with sorting them into the books isnt of needed, you can just go A-Z (surname) all the way. Though some ppl might like some "sub genres". Chandler talk 19:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another way could be sort after birth. Chandler talk 19:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, that requires specific knowledge which is not necessarily the first thing you learn about a character. And what about all the characters whose birth dates we don't know? It makes so much more sense just to sort by the thing you associate them best by. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, It was just an idea ;). What about remaking List of characters in the Harry Potter books so it resembles List of Harry Potter films cast members with those boxes to show, with different colors for, mentioned, appears etc. Chandler talk 20:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the merge of Moody, Umbridge, Slughorn, Quirrell, Lupin, and Staff of Hogwarts into Minor Hogwarts teachers, and placed a {{db-move}} tag on Hogwarts staff. When that is deleted we can move Minor Hogwarts teachers there and finally clear up the horrible spaghetti bowl of redirects that surround this topic. I have left McGonnagal for the moment as there appears to be no consensus on her. Happy‑melon 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is positively moronic. Umbridge is easily a major character in book 5, and is seen again in book 7 of the most popular series of books ever. She is far more important to the storyline than other characters you've put on the same page, such as Dippet, Burbage, Sinistra et al. I notice you've also created a double redirect. Thedreamdied 20:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of comments, the double redirects are fixed pretty quickly by a bot now, so I have been ignoring them to save time in my work. Also, if Umbridge is given a real-world, well-sourced, and long section wherever she is moved, then she can always be split off again. – Basar (talk · contribs) 21:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I had it my way, Umbridge, as well as Lupin, Moody, Slughorn and Trelawney would all have their own articles. As it is, Wikipedia doesn't support that, per WP:WAF. Please, I'd love to split them all off and give them their own articles again, so let's try and find sources to do so. For now, it's got to stand as it is. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I'd point out that, in all probability, these merges will be reverted, and you cannot revert them citing this discussion. Because you did not notify the talk pages of the articles in question of this discussion, this discussion is invalid if disputed. This discussion is only known by people privy to the larger motion, which almost all involved agree about this and thus creates an echo chamber without fresh voices. If there's one thing I learned from the whole television episode debate, it's that conversations like these are rarely given credence. i ^said 00:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. Care to try to cite any policy or guidelines to backup your claims? Furthermore, it is advertised on every Harry Potter page in the project banner. – Basar (talk · contribs) 00:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We will not need to revert them citing this discussion. Insted we will revert citing failure to demonstrate real-world notability based on WP:FICT, prevalence of in-universe information contradicting WP:WAF, failure of WP:OR, lack of verifiable reliable sources contradicting WP:RS and WP:V, and maybe throw a few more guidelines and policies in there for good measure. I echo Basar's request for you to provide any policy or guideline supporting your comment. Happy‑melon 09:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I phrased it a bit strong and authoritarian; sorry. The detached discussion about an article's fate with only people who are informed by external means and all agree on a course of action ahead of time will probably not be seen as a legitimate proposal. Whether or not the rabid inclusionists will revert will only be seen with time, but I anticipate a rehashing of this discussion where more people are informed. i ^said 22:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Minerva McGongall's should be kept. She was a strong supporting character during the whole series, unlike some other teachers, including Umbridge, Lupin, Moody, etc. that were notable only in one book, with some appearances in other books. I also think that the article's title "Hogwarts Staff" is much more accurated than "Minor Hogwarts teachers". Lord Opeth 16:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lupin and Moody were more major characters than McGonagall. i ^said 22:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moody with the help of Crouch. And Lupin had little appearances during books 4 and 6 (I'm not sure if Lupin even appeared in book 4). McGonagall played a secondary but notable role in almost every book. Lord Opeth 01:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think to resolve this question, we should keep for now, and, like several of the articles we have kept, try to build it up and see how good it can get. If it doesn't eventually get better, we can always merge it. Sound good? Judgesurreal777 00:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~::I agree, sounds reasonable. Lord Opeth 01:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

OK, I have been looking for sources and references for McGonagall but I found almost nothing notable. Also, by comparing some McGonagall's biographies in HP related pages, I found that the character is no more notable than the rest of the members of Hogwarts staff already merged. That's why I have changed my mind and support the redirect and merging of McGonagall (as soon as possible) into the Hogwarts staff article. I can work on that if you agree. Her section in the Staff article could be still be improved. Lord Opeth 16:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if it has been checked, then it can be merged...I bet we can build a nice section on her though, get some interviews, etc...Judgesurreal777 18:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva McGonagall is a very notable character in Harry Potter and absolutely needs an article of her own. It's absurd to have McGonagall in some list of characters when her own article is translated onto over 30 different Wikipedias, with the main English Wikipedia now not having an article. She was one of the first ever characters to be seen in the books, was herself a headteacher at Hogwarts, and was present throughout much of the series. McGonagall has actually been rated as 'high' on the Harry Potter WikiProject, so if she and the article are of high importance, how can McGonagall be merged into a list and dubbed not important enough to have her own article? After I saw that there was no message left on the talk page to explain the reasoning for the merge, I reverted the redirect, well at least for now anyway. I'm also surprised to see Dolores Umbridge on this list without her own article, and to think she was a headteacher at Hogwarts and a well-known character. Eagle Owl 19:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McGonagall was important, yes, but not as important as to be a main character. And according to your criteria, a Hogwarts headmaster deserves his/her own article? That's weird, obviously we are not creating an article for Everard, for mentioning some. Lord Opeth 00:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you, Eagle Owl, read the concerns and reasons for merging on this page? Arguing that because other people do something, we should too or arguing that we should follow the importance tag a single person added a long time ago, are not really valid arguments. – Basar (talk · contribs) 01:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not getting into an editing war with anyone, after all, we're here to make Wikipedia a better place. If the consensus is for the article to be merged, then that is what must be done. Next time, maybe a message should be left on the talk page with a direct link to this discussion so that others know what exactly is going on. Moreover, if the importance tag means nothing at all, then why is it on the talk page, or why hasn't the importance been changed and updated? — it is a little misleading. I now understand quite fully the reasoning, as someone very kindly put it here. At the moment the article stands as un-redirected to the list. Eagle Owl 13:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just add my two cents? Moody, McGonagall, Lupin, and Umbridge are more than just teachers. In fact, Moody never even got to teach! Umbridge should, I think, be moved somewhere more appropriate. Anyway, that's just what I figure. Keyblade Mage 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Keyblade Mage[reply]