This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The first book/movie in this series is called "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" NOT "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone." Will you please correct this on all of the entries dealing with Harry Potter? I am not a fanatic of the series, but this is pretty irritating.
The title "Sorcerer's Stone" was used almost exclusively in the United States, because Scholastic believed that "Philosopher" would turn kids off; the original title, and one used in most countries, is "Philosopher's Stone". Scenes in the movie that mentioned the stone were filmed twice, once with actors saying "Philosopher" and once with them saying "Sorcerer"; the latter were shown exclusively in the United States. Since the original title and the title which is used in most of the world is "Philosopher", that is the title that is used throughout the Harry Potter pages. Magidin (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
That is actually not true. If you sift through the titles given in Harry Potter in translation you will find that many countries used their language equivalent of "Sorcerer" in the title. So it is not just limited to the US. Nevertheless, that does not in any way diminish the decision here on Wikipedia to uniformly refer to it as the original title, as it was published in the UK, as "Philosopher". Case closed. Elizium23 (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
In many instances, that (using "Sorcerer") is directly attributable to the decision by Scholastic. For example, the Spanish title used "Piedra Filosofal", but Latin America often used "Hechicero" (sorcerer), translating from the American version. But indeed, that's neither here nor there. Magidin (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if Rowling intentionally didn't flesh out his character (I haven't read more than one of the books), but it seems like there is information about his birth and heritage, he was a student at Hogwarts and then he killed the Potters and somehow died. AFTER his resurrection, we get a lot of information but how did he die the first time? Was he kicked out of Hogwarts? Why did he kill the Potters? I know that Wikipedia can't be overly detailed but if any information could be given of the time of his life as Tom Riddle, it would enhance this character profile. Thanks. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Support per WP:CONCISE. "Voldemort" by itself fully identifies the character; no additional title is needed to do that. bd2412T 17:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll offer a timid, weak Support. I really don't care either way, but at this point it seems reasonable enough to support the nom and agree with BD2412's reasoning.Elizium23 (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The character is known as Lord Voldemort. The world "Lord" is really part of his name since he is not an actual Lord. There is also the fact the name is arrived at by an anagram, which includes the word lord. I really do not see the point of a change at all. Mezigue (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Widely known as "Lord Voldemort". This is the character's name. Do not shorten proper names just to reduce title length where there is no problem with the title length. The proposal is not supported by WP:CONCISE becuase the current title is not inconcise, the proposal is to remove part of the name, thus dropping information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Changing my !vote to this. Con arguments are stronger than pro arguments. Elizium23 (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The spirit of WP:CONCISE is meant to avoid absurdly long or overly specific article titles. It has been adequately demonstrated here that "Lord" is part of his name in this case, and deserves recognition in the article title. It's four letters, for crying out loud, how pedantic are we going to be? Elizium23 (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Admittedly, its five characters, counting the space, but its completely absurd to say that the title "Lord Voldemort" is inconcise and needs to be shortened to improve the quality of writing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
"Unnecessary" is very weak. Many good things are unnecessary. Including "Lord" is a good idea because: (1) it is the name of the character; (2) it improves recognizability without wordiness, redundancy or other inconcise attributes; (3) it is how the character is most frequently explicitly introduced in secondary sources ([http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/voldemort.html eg) with the shortened form only being used subsequently, when the short version is used initially it is in the assumption that the character is already known; (4) it was the choice of the original author of this article and has been stable ever since. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Mildy Oppose. The original impetus comes entirely from in-universe; if we want to talk about in-universe, the name derives from an anagram, and that this is what the character calls himself. Off-universe, there is already a re-direct from Voldemort, and I don't really see the point of the change. Magidin (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Weak oppose. There's no reason to move it for the sake of moving it. ONR(talk) 02:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Support – The full "Lord Voldemort" is seldom mentioned, in the books, movies, and in the general media. When it isn't "Tom Riddle" or "You-know-who", it is almost always "Voldemort". This isn't an in-universe explanation, this is just plain old WP:COMMONNAME. I also agree with bd2412 that the current title is akin to titling the Palpatine article "Emperor Palpatine". —Will(B) 07:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
For Palpatine, the title is squarely a monarchical title. In-universe, he is a real emperor, and Wikipedia's dropping the title, as a matter of style, fits well with WP:HONORIFIC. In-universe, Voldemort is not a real Lord, the "Lord" is an affection, a chosen name, whether by himself or his followers. From a literary perspective, these affections, like Captain America and Santa Claus, are attractive for their alliteration and cadence. Voldemort is a strange made up name with allusions to death (mort), and the "Lord" is required for the impression of power. This is important in the introduction. Once the impression is made, shorter versions, and alternative versions are employed to avoid repetition. Counting repeated usages in the same place is not relevant, it is the introductory use that matters, and good writing avoids repetition. These are qualities of a fictional proper name, unlike a formal title. Lord Voldemort is more akin to Lord Zedd. Similarly, "Zedd" alone is far less impressive, but in repeated use in the same place it is used without the "Lord". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose It is clear that "Lord" is only secondarily a title or honorific, and primarily part of the character's proper name. As to wp:concise, I'd like to remind that conciseness (definition, definitions, synonyms) is emphatically not the same as "shortest possible two-dimensional character string vector"